- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:20:36 +0100
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 27/09/2012 19:58, Paolo Missier wrote: > sorry it is consistent, I ignored inf. 20 (specialization implies alternate) and > just assumed that two entities that belong to the same equivalence class should > not be in a specialization hierarchy. > But then I just realized I don't quite understand the point of Inf. 20: Why has > it been introduced? > > you now have that specializations create equivalence classes, in particular > > a specializationOf b > a specializationOf c > > implies a alternateOf b and a alternateOf c > and therefore > b alternateOf c > > which is a bit odd. For an OWL-inclined reader, specialization has a SubClassOf > flavour, so this would be > > Mother specializationOf Woman > Mother specializationOf Parent > > therefore Woman and Parent are "alternates" -- this seems to make the > interpretation of "alternateOf" even more mysterious. Or is it just me The above works for me. If you adopt a class-oriented (OWL?) perspective, the alternateOf here would seem a bit odd. But I'd see it applied to a single person, say Alice, a mother, when considering: Alice as a woman and Alice as a parent To me, these seem quite reasonable as alternativeOf views of Alice. #g --
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:30:04 UTC