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

Currently:
alternativeOf: An entity is alternate of another if they refer to a same
thing.
specializationOf: An entity is a specialization of another if the latter is
a more general entity than the former.

Proposed:
alternativeOf: An entity is alternate of another if they specialize a
common Entity.
specializationOf: An entity is a specialization of another if they both
denote a common thing, but the former is a more constrained denotation than
the former. Examples of denotational constraint may include: abstraction,
context, and roles the entity has.

I'm relying here on the idea that in RDF, at least, URIs denote things in
the world. In order to assert that two symbols actually symbolize the same
thing, we first need to acknowledge that they symbol is not the thing, even
if we treat it as such within the universe of discourse. This is what
results in the non-unique naming assumption.

Jim

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This is the oldest issue in the tracker for prov-dm.
>
> A week ahead of the release of prov-dm wd5 (for internal review), I propose
> to close this issue.
>
> Please have a look at the section [1] currently describing
> alternateOf/specializationOf.
> As indicated yesterday, suggested english definition for these relations
> is appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/model/prov-**
> dm.html#component4<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component4>
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2011 12:22 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each
>> other  [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/29<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29>
>>
>> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>>
>> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the
>> possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
>> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)&  (A IVPof B), and
>> this is surely not intended.
>>
>>
>> This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
>> - A and B both represent the same entity
>> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have corresponding
>> values.
>> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties
>> of A
>> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties
>> of B
>>
>> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) that
>> real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may disallow
>> "IPV of" in this situation.  However, unless that is guaranteed, I think
>> that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a definition)
>> should additionally require that:
>> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of
>> B"
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu