Re: PROV-ISSUE-526: Data Model Section 5.5.2 [prov-dm]

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
   Alice as a parent

To me, these seem quite reasonable as alternativeOf views of Alice.


Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:30:04 UTC