- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:38:14 +0100
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|a68dc544f0a5ef61a6db8f574df5361ao2PMcS08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F70E1C6>
Hi Paolo, I have updated the text to make it clear that the common entity does not need to be identified. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/21b96bf05727 Cheers, Luc On 26/03/12 15:59, Paolo Missier wrote: > Luc > > > On 3/26/12 2:54 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for your very useful suggestions. >> >> I have drafted a revised section in a separate file >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html >> >> >> Does capture what has been discussed so far? > I think so. To me it is important that when we say > " They are both specialization of an (unspecified) entity." eg in the > first example, it is clear that there no obligation to say anything > about the common entity that they specialize. This, however, contrasts > with the definition itself: > " An entity is alternate of another if they are both a specialization > of some common entity." > It is not clear what to make of this defining property of alternates > -- it gives an existential condition which is not actionable in > general. So to me this is potentially confusing. >> >> Also, if specialization(a,b) is it the case that alternateOf(a,b)? > no. I recall that we've been there before. At some point there was a > discussion on specialization having a "top" and being transitive and > therefore, with this additional inferences, everything would collapse. > > Regards, > -Paolo > >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> On 25/03/2012 17:16, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Jim McCusker wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org >>>> <mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round >>>> to, I question whether we actually need to have these concepts >>>> in the DM. >>>> >>>> Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain >>>> the relationship between provenance entities and (possibly >>>> dynamic) real world things. With the looser description of the >>>> provenance model terms, I don't see why this level of detail is >>>> needed in the data model. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then you don't recollect correctly. >>> >>> I remember IPV-of as the "relationship between provenance entities >>> and (possibly dynamic) real world things", but specializationOf has >>> developed into a more general association between entities that can >>> include this original purpose. Indeed, eg-19 [1] is using alt and >>> specOf for _exactly_ this original "frozen snapshot of changing >>> things" notion -- applied to datasets and web services. >>> >>> Instead of digging up the archives, perhaps we can rally around >>> altOf and specOf being the tools we use to associate (and make sense >>> of) assertions made by the combinations of scruffy and proper >>> provenance. >>> (Like Simon's extension to Stian's BBC example). In addition, it's >>> an incredibly useful construct for one's own "proper" modeling. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-19-derived-named-graph-attribution >>> >>>> They were defined because there was an acknowledgement that there >>>> were multiple symbols that denoted a common thing in the world. >>>> Sometimes they reflected different aspects of the same thing >>>> (alternativeOf) and sometimes they had a subsumptive quality >>>> (specializationOf). >>> >>> I think these previous two statements contradict (and steer scarily >>> towards owl:sameAs, which alt and specOf are certainly _not_) >>> Different aspects of the same thing are not the same things. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> -- >>>> Jim McCusker >>>> Programmer Analyst >>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>>> Yale School of Medicine >>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) >>>> 785-6330 >>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >>>> <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/> >>>> >>>> PhD Student >>>> Tetherless World Constellation >>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu> >>>> http://tw.rpi.edu <http://tw.rpi.edu/> >>> > > > -- > ----------- ~oo~ -------------- > Paolo Missier -Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk,pmissier@acm.org > School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK > http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier >
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 21:39:09 UTC