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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-99: prov:eventuallyUsed - a transitive version of prov:used. [Formal Model]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:54:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0De_g_Tnkf63sZ-BOzyaV2E1my0c0nLT3pCv+atO1JkbYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
I like the generation + dependedOn too. We should start discussinng how to
add it
to the ontology as rules, if everybody agrees.

Just to clarify further the Khalid's example, I think that the proposed
change is aimed to
to model the wasTriggeredBy property between processes: if a process
triggers(generates) another one
that triggers(generates) another itself, then we could say that the last one
"wasEventuallyGeneratedBy" the first one.

Thanks,
Daniel


2011/9/21 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

>
> Hi,
>
> The issue raised by Tim was a follow up of few emails that were exchanged
> between the members of the formal model sub-group.
>
> To illustrate the transitivity that is meant, consider an entity e0 that is
> used by a process execution pe1, and consider that pe1 was used (consumed)
> by a second process execution pe2. pe1 is, therefore, both a process
> execution and an entity.
>
> The question raised by the issue is whether we can state that pe2 used e0?
> Tim was suggesting the use of "eventuallyUsed" instead of used in this
> context.
>
> The same above observation applies to generation.
>
> Note that in the above it is assumed that the classes prov:Entity and
> prov:ProcessExecution are not necessarily disjoint.
>
> Now, in your answer, you were suggesting that:
>  used(pe,e) or  (used(pe,e1) and dependedOn(e1,e)) implies
> eventuallyUsed(pe,e).
>
> I quite like this. And I think we can extend it for the case of generation.
> That is:
>
> wasGeneratedBy(e,pe) or (wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe) and dependedOn(e,e1))
> implies wasEventuallyGeneratedBy(e,pe)
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
>
> On 19/09/2011 20:38, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> What do you mean by transitive here, given that domain  is
>> ProcessExecution and
>> range Entity?
>>
>>
>> Maybe, you would like to define
>> eventuallyUsed(pe,e) if
>>  used(pe,e)
>>  or
>>  used(pe,e1) and dependedOn(e1,e)
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 19/09/11 19:35, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-99: prov:eventuallyUsed - a transitive version of prov:used.
>>> [Formal Model]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/99<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/99>
>>>
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: Formal Model
>>>
>>> To clarify whether used is transitive or not, I propose a transitive
>>> superproperty "eventuallyUsed" to make the distinction clear.
>>>
>>> The corresponding considerations also need to be made for the conceptual
>>> document.
>>>
>>> The OWL axioms related to this property are at
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**file/tip/ontology/components/**
>>> eventuallyUsed.ttl<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components/eventuallyUsed.ttl>:
>>>
>>>
>>> prov:eventuallyUsed
>>>    a owl:ObjectProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty;
>>> .
>>>
>>> prov:used rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:eventuallyUsed .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 17:54:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT