W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-226 (dgarijo): domain of the qualifiedDelegation property? [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DemU6zVsyk4qkBGJ4hafttGcV_1s-7-MF02H0kVafWB_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim.
With the current modelling, the issue no longer exists (it is out of date).
I'll raise a separate issue to make sure that the "activity" property
has domain AgentInvolvement as well.

I closed the issue.
Thanks,
Daniel


2012/4/9 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Daniel,
>
> Is this still a problem?
>
> If so, could you add an example to
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_examples that exercise the relevant
> constructs in question?
>
> Perhaps:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-23-leader-acted-on-behalf-of-country
> ->
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-23-leader-acted-on-behalf-of-country/rdf/eg-23-leader-acted-on-behalf-of-country.ttl
>
>
> I think relaxing the current domain of hadActivity would address your
> concerns, so that we can reference the Activity in which an Agent acted on
> behalf (from a prov:Responsibility).
>
>
>
> I added responses within to help the discussions along.
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>
> PROV-ISSUE-226 (dgarijo): domain of the qualifiedDelegation property?
> [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/226
>
> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> On product: Ontology
>
> actedOnBehalfOf is a n-ary relationship,
>
>
> yes.
>
> since you can relate 2 agents and an activity. I have named the n-ary
> relationship "Delegation",
>
>
> It is currently named "Responsibility" to suit the DM's naming.
>
>
> since (as Khalid suggested), it implies the notion of responsability
> between 2 agents.
>
> All the other qualifiedInvolvements have as domain an activity.
>
>
> This is not true. The "qualifiedInvolvements" (e.g. qualifiedUsage) may
> have a range of EntityInvolvement, ActivityInvolvement, or AgentInvolvement
> depending on the range of the corresponding unqualified property.
>
> e.g.
> prov:used range is Entity
> prov:qualifiedUsage range is EntityInvolvement (which references the
> Entity using prov:entity).
>
>
> We could have the activity as domain for qualifiedDelegation too, but in
> this case the activity is optional, so it might not be the best approach.
>
>
> To suit the qualified pattern, we must choose _one_ of the N resources in
> the relation to be the "primary" one. The rule here is to choose the one
> being referenced in the unqualified triple [being reified], and to
> reference it with {prov:entity, prov:agent, prov:activity} - all other
> resources in the N-ary are referenced with "hadX" properties.
>
> This is discussed perhaps poorly at
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#4._Naming_style_for_prov:entity_prov:activity_prov:agent_is_RESERVED
>
>
>
> If we decide that the domain is an Agent,
>
>
> But yes, we do choose Agent. Per the rule above.
>
> then we would need a "hadQualifiedActivity" property to link the optional
> activity which one of the agents is controlling on behalf of the other.
>
>
>
> prov:hadActivity was created to reference an Activity for Derivation.
> I propose to relax the domain on this property to handle the problem you
> point out.
>
>
>
> The second agent could be linked with the existent hadQualifiedEntity.
>
>
> The second agent is already linked. See the example to see how :cameron_as_prime_minister
> is linked to <http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_Kingdom>.
>
>
> Summary: if we choose the first option, it would be a wrong modeling IMO.
> If we choose the second option, we would need an extra property and now one
> of the qualified involvements would have Agents as domain. I've commited
> the delegation section in the html doc, but without any examples until we
> agree on this.
> Thoughts?
>
>
> I couldn't parse our your two options clearly. Your second option summary
> sounds about right. I suggest we reuse hadActivity to cite the optional
> activity involved in the Agent-Agent relations.
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 14:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT