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

Re: PROV-O in Callimachus

From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:59:33 -0500
Message-ID: <1352469573.2093.12.camel@james-PBL21>
To: pgroth@gmail.com
Cc: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, public-prov-comments <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

The activity resource is important to hang other information off of.
Including startedAtTime/endedAtTime and wasAssociatedWith. It is also
important to so wasGeneratedBy can be used on mutable resources to point
to the activity that created its current state.

The reason I use prov:generated (and not prov:wasGeneratedBy) to link
the activity with the specialized resources is for discover-ability.
Given just the bundle URI, all other resource can be discovered by
following the (directed) relationships.

Callimachus is a Linked Data Management System and returns a concise
bounded description[1] for a describe resource URI request. As with
static HTML pages, it is hard to find incoming links, but easy to follow
outgoing links on the Web.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/

Regards,
James

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 22:32 -0500, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> 
> This looks really good. I was wondering why you used prov:generated -
> is this so you can more easily query ?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM, James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
> wrote:
>         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 Friday, 9 November 2012 14:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 November 2012 14:00:06 GMT