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

Dear all,

I am getting conflicting messages on this topic!

James has listed some properties derived from the semantics
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0470.html
But not all of them seem to be aligned with what we are reading on this 
thread.

So, I started drafting a section in prov-dm part II listing the 
properties of these relations [1].

I am proposing to justify each property either by reasoning based on its 
definition,
or by a counter-example.

*Your suggestions are needed to help us complete this section. *

James, unless my reasoning is incorrect, I do not have transitivity for 
specializationOf.

Cheers,
Luc

[1] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#component4

On 03/29/2012 05:21 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I think that, at the very least, we can rule out anti-reflexive. The 
> question is then if every entity specializes itself. What it comes 
> down to, then, are essentially epsilon amounts of specialization. 
> Since we don't require any particular amount of specialization, we 
> certainly allow epsilon specializations, and I guess since we allow 
> it, there is always an implicit epsilon specialization. Is this a 
> reasonable argument, or did I just go off the tracks?
>
> Jim
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Graham Klyne 
> <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk <mailto:Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Normally, it seems my refrain is to hold back from
>     over-specifying.  But in this case, I can't help wondering if
>     sitting on the fence and saying nothing is the worst option.  It
>     suggests that in some cases, specializationOf(a,a) may be True,
>     and in others it's False.
>
>     I'd agree this doesn't need to be covered in the DM (part 1), but
>     for strict interpretations of provenance (-constraints) I think a
>     position probably should be taken.
>
>     #g
>     -- 
>
>
>     On 29/03/2012 13:15, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
>
>         On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>             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.
>
>
>         +1
>
>         -Tim
>
>
>
>             --
>             Stian Soiland-Reyes
>
>
>             --
>             Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>             School of Computer Science
>             The University of Manchester
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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