W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > November 2012

Re: F2F Decision: Provenance

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:24:31 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUFWGKVuQ+XC9w51+PjAAMuEEv5HGZNMXzDcVAHfEa-h1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
I agree that prov:alternativeOf is slightly broader than our use case for
oa:equivalent, but I'm not (yet) convinced that we need to revert to our
own specialization.

Is there a situation in which someone would want to use prov:alternateOf
and it would NOT be consistent with what we want to use it for? If not,
then I would definitely prefer to keep it.  If yes, then let's create a
specialization.

The semantics, in my opinion, are derived from the decision to conflate
Annotation as a concept and the Document that encodes it.  Thus two
annotation documents are the equivalent if they encode the same conceptual
annotation, potentially with different metadata and necessarily with a
different URI.

Rob


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Graham,
> thank you for your feedback and welcome to the group!
>
> I am assuming
> a prov:alternativeOf v
> was meant to be
> a prov:alternativeOf b
>
> The current definition of oa:equivalent is: The subject and object
> resources of the oa:equivalent relationship represent the same Annotation,
> but potentially have different metadata such as generator, generated and
> serialization format. oa:equivalent is a symmetrical relationship; if A
> oa:equivalent B, then it is also true that B oa:equivalent A.
>
> Basically it is a mechanism to allow multiple 'copies' of the same
> annotation. Each copy identified by a different URI and can have different
> metadata.
>
> Given this and given your explanation, I believe prov:alternativeOf has a
> broader meaning than oa:equvalentTo. Maybe we can keep our original
> property and declare it a sub-property of prove:alternativeOf?
>
> We would appreciate more feedback from the prov group on this matter.
>
> Best,
> Paolo
>
> ps: we will fix prov:generatedAt
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I may be coming late to this party.  Sorry if I grab the wrong end of the
>> stick here.  I'm a participant in the prov group, but here am speaking
>> strictly for myself - other members of the group may disagree.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> prov:alternativeOf isn't quite the same as "equivalence", though it's
>> possible that it's similar to ao:equivalent.  I don't know if ao:equivalent
>> means more or less than one might expect of "equivalent".
>>
>> My interpetation of prov:alternativeOf is roughtly
>>
>> exists(c)
>> a prov:specializationOf c
>> b prov:specializationOf c
>> |-
>> a prov:alternativeOf v
>>
>> where
>>
>> a prov:specializationOf c means that the resource a is resource c
>> constrained to some interval or context or situation.
>>
>> E.g. (Boston in 1776) prov:specializationOf (Boston)
>>
>> Following this, we might have
>>
>> (Boston in 1776) prov:alternativeOf (Boston in 2012)
>>
>> Are they equivalent?  I'd say not.  But do they in some sense refer to
>> the same thing?  I'd say so.
>>
>> If that kind of semantics works for AO, then fine, but I'm suspecting it
>> may be somewhat different to what you might expect.  It's not, for example,
>> like the old rdf:Alternate class.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, there is no prov:generatedAt property.  Do you mean
>> prov:generartedAtTime?  (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#**generatedAtTime<http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#generatedAtTime>
>> )
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>
>> On 01/11/2012 10:39, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I guess the lack of reaction means everyone agrees :-)
>>>
>>> I may have trouble the very idea of representing oa:Annotation as direct
>>> result
>>> of the generating, as opposed to the direct result of annotating. But
>>> I'll
>>> clearly need some more time to get my head around it.
>>>
>>> One trivial for now is replacing oa:generator with oa:generatedBy.
>>> This makes the property seem very close to prov:wasGeneratedBy, in a
>>> context
>>> where OA and PROV would be used together. While they are quite different
>>> in
>>> reality: range of oa:generatedBy would be agent, range of
>>> prov:wasGeneratedBy is
>>> prov:Activity.
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>>  This part of the discussion covered two primary topics related to
>>>> provenance and the W3C Provenance Ontology.
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Can we replace oa:equivalent with something from the Prov work?
>>>>
>>>> Decision:  Yes, prov:alternateOf is semantically identical to
>>>> oa:equivalent
>>>> Thus we'll simply replace all mentions of oa:equivalent in the
>>>> specification with prov:alternateOf
>>>>
>>>> 2.  What is the relationship between the current (simple) provenance
>>>> information recorded for an annotation, and the Prov work?
>>>>
>>>> Decisions:
>>>>   - Replace oa:generated with prov:generatedAt, as they are
>>>> semantically identical
>>>>   - Replace oa:generator with oa:generatedBy, and subclass of
>>>> prov:wasAttributedTo
>>>>   - Replace oa:annotated with oa:annotatedAt (to follow the generatedAt
>>>> pattern)
>>>>   - Replace oa:annotator with oa:annotatedBy
>>>>   - Include a diagram of the mapping in the specification
>>>>
>>>> (Diagram attached)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Rob&  Paolo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 15:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 November 2012 15:25:00 GMT