The definition is indeed vague to the point that making two entities alternates seems arbitrary. To me this means that one can always assert the equivalence amongst two entities if *you* think they are aspects of the same thing, just like one can assert owl:sameAs, and then live with the consequences. For instance a alternateOf b b alternateOf c a specializationOf c would not be consistent if you do the reasoning. --Paolo On 9/25/12 8:15 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > > Can someone make suggestions regarding "how to determine when two entities are considered alternates of each other, or when they > are not". > > Our definition states "Two alternate ◊ entities present aspects of the same thing. These aspects may be the same or different, and > the alternate entities may or may not overlap in time." > > > Thanks, > Luc > > On 10/09/12 09:51, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-526: Data Model Section 5.5.2 [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/526 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: prov-dm >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.5.2 >> >> ISSUE-463 >> >> It is not clear how to determine when two entities are considered alternates of each other, or when they are not. Please add more >> explanation, as this will be important for computational reasoning over provenance information. >> >> Through the definition of Influence (figure 8), the relationship "alternateOf" should require an ID and support an optional list >> of attributes. >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- ----------- ~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.MissierReceived on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:22:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:21 UTC