Re: PROV-ISSUE-563 (primer-alternates-figure): Primer Section 3.9 Alternates [Primer]

Hi,

not sure who raised this, but I believe that in the example of 3.9 the statement

ex:articleV2 prov:alternateOf      ex:articleV1

is redundant, since it follows by Inf. 20 in CONSTR.

This may be noted explicitly but I would keep the statement, as it elicited a relevant comment.

It seems that whoever raised the issue feels, like me, that specializations and alternates should not mix so freely.

-Paolo


On 9/26/12 4:42 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-563 (primer-alternates-figure): Primer Section 3.9 Alternates [Primer]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/563
>
> Raised by: Simon Miles
> On product: Primer
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Primer_Section_3.9
>
> ISSUE-463
>
> The figure makes clear the ambiguous interpretation of "alternateOf". Both V1 and V2 are different "specializations" of "article", yet they are declared to be alternates. I find this unintuitive.
>
>
>


-- 
-----------  ~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.Missier