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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:39:48 -0400
Cc: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0357CD3F-C9DA-4EA7-AB66-CA6189A30065@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

On Apr 26, 2012, at 6:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> I find myself somewhat concerned by what appears to be scope creep associated with collections.

Is renaming it to Dictionary and leaving Collection a hallow class feature creep?
I don't think anybody is eager to flesh out any other collection types.
If users want to flesh out the simpler constructs, let them. It's straightforward and harder to do incorrectly.
But let's give them the good design of the Dictionary so that they're not reinventing the more challenging one (in different ways).

>  It seems to me that in the area, the provenance model is straying in the the domain of application design.  If collections were just sets, I could probably hold my nose and say nothing, but this talk of having provenance define various forms of collection indexing seems to me to be out of scope.
> So I think this is somewhat in agreement with what Satya says here, though I remain unconvinced that the notions of collections and derivation-by-insertion, etc., actually *need* to be in the main provenance ontology - why not let individual applications define their own provenance extension terms?

I disagree. The compositional aspects of Dictionary provide an enriched layer to the main provenance data model that is not obvious from the more atomic Entity/Activity/Agent concepts.
And it's ability to model multiple input parameter, multiple output parameter operators is a rather fundamental and ubiquitous provenance requirement.


> #g
> --
> On 18/04/2012 17:35, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The issue I had raised last week is that collection is an important
>> provenance construct, but the assumption of only key-value pair based
>> collection is too narrow and the relations derivedByInsertionFrom,
>> Derivation-by-Removal are over specifications that are not required.
>> I have collected the following examples for collection, which only require
>> the definition of the collection in DM5 (collection of entities) and they
>> don't have (a) a key-value structure, and (b) derivedByInsertionFrom,
>> derivedByRemovalFrom relations are not needed:
>> 1. Cell line is a collection of cells used in many biomedical experiments.
>> The provenance of the cell line (as a collection) include, who submitted
>> the cell line, what method was used to authenticate the cell line, when was
>> the given cell line contaminated? The provenance of the cells in a cell
>> line include, what is the source of the cells (e.g. organism)?
>> 2. A patient cohort is a collection of patients satisfying some constraints
>> for a research study. The provenance of the cohort include, what
>> eligibility criteria were used to identify the cohort, when was the cohort
>> identified? The provenance of the patients in a cohort may include their
>> health provider etc.
>> Hope this helps our discussion.
>> Thanks.
>> Best,
>> Satya
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:
>>> Hi Jun and Satya,
>>> Following today's call, ACTION-76 [1] and ACTION-77 [2] were raised
>>> against you, as we agreed.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/actions/76<https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/76>
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/actions/77<https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/77>
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:40:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC