- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:51:10 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TMjk6Z8=AZoKA0S2TnZaOjH4K82p2r49RL7jgckzTCVA@mail.gmail.com>
I think that both of our ideas abut specialization fall under our PROV construct, actually. I don't think we say anymore that if specialization of(a,b) then everything that's true of b is also true of a. We have simply moved up a level of abstraction in the discussion when talking about b instead of a. Come to think of it, your example isn't valid FRBR. The expression here is the *content* of that performance, which can't be said to have taken place on a particular date, only that it was created then, by that performance (an Activity). Jim On Apr 3, 2012 9:24 AM, "Graham Klyne" <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > FWIW, I think it would be wrong to define specialization with FRBR > concepts. > > Let's take FRBR expression and manifestation: > > - expression may be a particular performance of a musical composition. > - manifestation may be a recording reproduced on CD of that performance > > I don't think it is coherent to claim that the recording is a > specialization of the performance. E.g. the performance takes place on a > particular date. That cannot be said of the CD. Or the performance may > have been produced by one agent, the CD by another. > > I think similar considerations apply across the range of FRBR core > concepts (work, expression, manifestation, item). > > #g > -- > > On 02/04/2012 13:38, Timothy Lebo wrote: > >> >> On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Tom De Nies wrote: >> >> +1 >>> >>> I had trouble understanding the reasoning of this example as well.. >>> In our data model, the email would rather be a collection, and the >>> signature an element of it, rather than a specialization of it. >>> A specialization of "this email" would be, for example. the "printed >>> version on my desk", which is a specialization of "my thoughts on this >>> email thread". >>> >>> >> +1 (your phrasing is exactly what FRBR addresses; we're borrowing their >> notions to create a simpler form with atlOf and specOf) >> >> >> Intuitively, I am having trouble coming up with a counterexample of the >>> transitivity of our specialization. >>> >> >> Me too. >> >> -Tim >> >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Tom >>> --- >>> Tom De Nies >>> Ghent University - IBBT >>> Faculty of Engineering and Architecture >>> Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab >>> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium >>> >>> t: +32 9 331 49 59 >>> e: tom.denies@ugent.be >>> >>> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.**ugent.be<http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/4/2 Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>> > >>> >>> is this example really reflecting specialisation? The signature is >>> contained in the email message. Is it a specialisation of it? >>> >>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 00:11, "Stian Soiland-Reyes"<soiland-reyes@** >>> cs.manchester.ac.uk <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> >>> My signature in the end of this email is a specialization of this >>>> email message, which is a specialization of my thoughts on this email >>>> thread. However the signature is not a specialization of those >>>> thoughts. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:51:43 UTC