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

Re: PROV-O in Callimachus

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:41:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoXejxhLEraNsvvYWBAO+O5YH0Jmp5LvGQDU3q4Fiux4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, public-prov-comments <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi James,

Make a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation!

Paul


On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:59 AM, James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> 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 18:41:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 November 2012 18:41:39 GMT