W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Prov-o call on Monday 12:00noon US ET

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:35:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4EA593C6.6040202@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 24/10/2011 16:54, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> On 24/10/2011 16:49, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>> Yes, Khalid, but if you have the same entity used 2 times by 
>> different process executions
>> with the same role, you would also need 2 different EntityInRole.
> Yes, if the same entity play two different roles w.r.t. the same 
> process execution, then we need to create two different EntityInRoles.

I meant if the same entity plays the same role in 2 different process 
executions, then we need to create two different entityInRoles.

khalid
>
>>
>> Imagine that pe1 uses e1Input1 (entity e1 with role: Input1) at time t1.
>> According to our current modeling, we would assert t1 to the 
>> entityInRole (with hasTemporalValue).
>>
>> If some time later we execute another p2 that uses e1 with the same 
>> role at time t2, we cannot use e1Input1,
>> because it has already associated t1. That is why we would need 
>> e1Input1' (a new EntityInRole instance).
>>
>> But I remember we already discussed this with Satya :S
>> It seems that we should make it clear somewhere, since people are 
>> getting confused.
> Yes, I agree. We need to write it down. It is probably not the most 
> elegant solution, but it is a solution that works :-)
>
> khalid
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>>
>> 2011/10/24 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>>
>>
>>     On 24/10/2011 15:44, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>         On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:07, Luc
>>         Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>         <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>             That's exactly the point, time is associated with
>>             generation/use, not
>>             entities.
>>
>>         But as we have not (as of yet) made a deliberate n-ary
>>         relationship
>>         Generation or Use class in PROV-O - so prov:wasGeneratedAt is
>>         associated with an Entity (as it can only be generated once
>>         within an
>>         account) and prov:assumedRoleAt with an EntityInRole (as it
>>         can only
>>         be prov:wasASsumedBy one Entity).
>>
>>
>>         To be fair this is not a direct mapping with PROV-DM, because
>>         it would
>>         allow the same entity-in-role to be prov:used by two
>>         different PEs -
>>         the prov:assumedRoleAt would only record time of the first
>>         such use.
>>         On the other hand a PE could actually be using the entity several
>>         times, and we don't have a way to record each of these unless
>>         we do it
>>         as separate roles each time. (And still can't capture the
>>         duration of
>>         the use)
>>
>>     >From my understanding that is not the case. If the same entity
>>     is used twice by two different process executions or by the same
>>     process execution, then we will have to create two
>>     EntityInRole(s) each associated with a different role.
>>
>>     For example consider an entity e that is used by a process
>>     execution p such that the role of e w.r.t. p is  r, and let p' be
>>     another process execution that uses e such that the role of e
>>     w.r.t. p' is r'.
>>
>>     Using prov-o, we will have two entityinRoles that represent the
>>     entity e but with different roles. Consider that these
>>     entityinroles are er and er'. er and er' will have as properties
>>     the characterizing attributes of e. Additionally, er (resp. er')
>>     will have the role property r (resp. r').
>>
>>     Khalid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 16:35:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT