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

RE: PROV-O in Callimachus

From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:50:49 -0500
Message-ID: <1352404249.2117.7.camel@james-PBL21>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-comments <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi Simon,

Yes I have, thanks for the response. It has taken me a while to digest
everything and reconsider the best way forward.

I have incorporated the use of prov:specializationOf into Callimachus. I
expect to have 0.18-beta-10 out soon that demonstrates this. In the mean
time I updated my blog post[1] to reflect the new model. In short the
structure looks like the following after two insert operations and one
update operation. It's a bit more verbose, but it is also more accurate.

[1] http://jamesrdf.blogspot.ca/2012/10/provenance-and-traceability-in.html

Thank you again and please let me know if I there is anything else I can
improve here.

Regards,
James

GRAPH <b1> {
    <b1> prov:wasGeneratedBy <a1> .
    
    <a1> prov:generated <e1> .
    
    <e1> prov:specializationOf <e> ;
         audit:with <s1>.
}
GRAPH <b2> {
    <b2> prov:wasGeneratedBy <a2> .
    
    <a2> prov:generated <e2> .
    
    <e2> prov:specializationOf <e> ;
         prov:wasRevisionOf <e1> ;
         audit:with <s2>.
}
GRAPH <b3> {
    <b3> prov:wasInfluencedBy <b1>, <b2> ;
         prov:wasGeneratedBy <a3> .
    
    <a3> prov:generated <e3> .
    
    <e3> prov:specializationOf <e> ;
         prov:wasRevisionOf <e2> ;
         audit:without <s1>, <s2> .

    <s1> rdf:subject <e> ;
         rdf:predicate foo:bar ;
         rdf:object <x> .

    <s2> rdf:subject <e> ;
         rdf:predicate foo:bar ;
         rdf:object <y> .
    
    <e> foo:bar <z> ; prov:wasGeneratedBy <a3> .
}



On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 16:00 +0000, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> Have you had a chance to look at the response below? As part of the W3C process we need an acknowledgement from you to record that your comments have been satisfactorily responded to. The provenance working group will be meeting on Friday, and it would be very helpful to know whether what we said answered your query before then, if possible.
> 
> thanks,
> Simon
> 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
> ________________________________________
> From: Miles, Simon
> Sent: 25 October 2012 17:55
> To: James Leigh
> Cc: public-prov-comments
> Subject: RE: PROV-O in Callimachus
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> The PROV working group discussed the questions regarding mutable resources in Callimachus (and in general) that you raised. We've uploaded the response to the group Wiki [1], but I'll copy the text here for convenience.
> 
> PROV supports the case you describe using the prov:specializationOf relation to connect a mutable resource URI to entities representing each revision over time. The latter don't have to exist already in Callimachus, but may be created with unique IDs specifically to model the provenance.
> 
> If a change in a resource's state is something to be documented in the provenance, then that requires multiple entities. PROV entities are allowed to be mutable, but the purpose of this is to hide information that is unimportant, i.e. that you do not want to model in the provenance. As soon as the timeline of the resource is divided into relevantly different periods (e.g. before and after each contributor edited), then the mechanism to document this in PROV is to use multiple entities. If you have a single identifier (entity) for the mutable resource as it exists over time, through multiple revisions, this can be connected to the set of revision entities using the prov:specializationOf relation.
> 
> The flour and baking example is similar. If a change is to be documented in PROV, then multiple entities are used, e.g. the flour before and after baking. If it is not documented, then only one entity is required. There is no notion of a change which is "documented but not significant", because it is unclear what significance would be in general except for the decision to model/document it. As before, a general, mutable "flour" entity can exist that is connected to the flour before and after baking using prov:specializationOf. For example:
>  ex:baked prov:used ex:flour1
>  ex:flour2 prov:wasGeneratedBy ex:baked
>  ex:flour2 prov:wasDerivedFrom ex:flour1
>  ex:flour1 prov:specializationOf ex:flour
>  ex:flour2 prov:specializationOf ex:flour
> 
> Can you say whether you think this addresses your questions?
> 
> thanks,
> Simon
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-569_.28Mutable_resources.29
> 
> 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> Automatically Adapting Source Code to Document Provenance:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1397/
> ________________________________________
> From: pgroth@gmail.com [pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth [p.t.groth@vu.nl]
> Sent: 10 October 2012 14:28
> To: James Leigh
> Cc: public-prov-comments
> Subject: Re: PROV-O in Callimachus
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Following-up, I think the issue (now ISSUE-569) you raised on how to
> deal with mutable resources is important. We are going to discuss this
> in the working group. As to not bombard you with emails, we will take
> this onto our own working group email list and get back to you with a
> response. If you want to follow the discussion, you can find all the
> email traffic and discussion at
> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/569.
> 
> Thanks again for your input and we are excited that Callimachus is using prov.
> 
> regards
> Paul
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 19:51:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 November 2012 19:51:17 GMT