W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:32:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnsS6pmOD4B_d98bu_mW=RpTLtsQ9D-LeRBZTJTvrZ=3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Personally, I prefer the choice that it is reflexive; i.e.
> specializationOf(a,a) always holds.  As I recall, that seems to simplify
> some other inferential machinery.

Yes, it solves the turtles-all-the-way problem last highlighted by Tim in
this thread, if we also made specializationOf(x,y) imply alternativeOf(x,y),
as the unknown top-level y can be specializationOf itself. However I think
we dismissed the need for such an inference.

Intuitively it sounds confusing to be an alternative to yourself, or a
specialisation of yourself, but as we see above there could be special
cases where you would want (a subproperty of)
specializationOf/alternativeOf to be reflective, so I would simply say +1 for
the conservative say-nothing approach for reflexivity.

Stian Soiland-Reyes

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC