Re: PROV-ISSUE-560: type overlap question [prov-dm-constraints]

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus in favor of imposing additional disjointness constraints between subtypes of entity and agent.  I agree with Paul's point that it is better not to over-constrain.  (For example, maybe a person with multiple personalities could also be a collection?!)

I propose that no change is needed to address the issue.  Marked pending review.  Any objection to closing?

--James

On Sep 26, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just a response on this one, I think constraints should be there for
> provenance purposes. Does the constraint help me make "better"
> provenance? Obviously, we will always allow this overlap in the DM, so
> does adding a constraint here help something.
> 
> My tendency is to not add more constraints if they are not
> fundamental. This does not seem to be a fundamental thing.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-560: type overlap question [prov-dm-constraints]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/560
>> 
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm-constraints
>> 
>> 
>> It's clear that an activity cannot be an entity.
>> 
>> It's also clear that an agent may be an entity (or an activity).
>> 
>> Given this, can a prov:Person be a prov:Collection?  Currently, this is permitted.
>> 
>> We have not explicitly considered type overlap impossibility for subtypes of Entity and Agent.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 12:38:04 UTC