- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:05 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|e91b7356923ecef0f87eecfda273eddco2QHS908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F71EA95>
Hi Jim, Agreed, we could be silent about reflexivity, which means we don't say whether specializationOf is reflexive or irreflexive. That's a conservative position, I am fine with. The English definition uses the term 'more constrained' which is probably too vague to decide one or the other. An entity is a specialization of another if they both refer to some common thing but the former is a *more constrained* entity than the former. The common entity does not need to be identified. Luc On 03/27/2012 05:20 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > I'm not sure if it is or not. I'm willing to support proposals as to > why it might be, but I haven't seen any good arguments for it yet. > Even if we think it might be, we may want to hold off on declaring it. > > Neither rdfs:subClassOf or skos:broader are reflexive, and I think the > same arguments apply to making them reflexive. People who are > interested in having a reflexive specializationOf could make a > subproperty (if it's domain specific) or superproperty (if they think > that it always holds), depending on their needs. However, if we define > it to be reflexive ourselves, we complicate matters for those who > think that it isn't. > > Jim > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > > Hi, > As we discuss axioms of specialization/alternateOf > > is specializationOf reflexive? > > Luc > > > On 03/27/2012 03:52 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > alt1 and alt2 is good. It is fairly obvious (but should be > explained > in constraints) that alternateOf(a, b) indirectly implies > alternateOf(b, a), as it implies > > specializationOf(a, X) > specializationOf(b, X) > > and that implies: > > alternateOf(b, a) > alternateOf(a, b) > > > Would we need to say that if > > alternateOf(a, b) > alternateOf(a, c) > > it does not imply: > > alternateOf(b, c) > > ? > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 22:46, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu > <mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote: > > Do they need fully contextualized names? Can they just be > a and b, or x and > y? I'm pretty sure this isn't a qualified relation... > > Jim > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Luc > Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> > wrote: > > > BTW, has somebody got better names for first and > second alternate? > > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.firstAlternate > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.secondAlternate > > Thanks, > Luc > > > On 26/03/12 22:38, Luc Moreau wrote: > > 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 > <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330> > 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 > > > > > -- > ----------- ~oo~ -------------- > Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk > <mailto:Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, > pmissier@acm.org <mailto:pmissier@acm.org> > School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK > http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier > > > > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | > (203) 785-6330 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330> > 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 > > > > > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > > > > -- > 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 > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu> > http://tw.rpi.edu -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 16:28:46 UTC