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

Re: PROV ISSUE-206 some possible proposals

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:52:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm-8CTVX6sSDr-qo7w4iJwdOZVGwFTLMZO_4E+0XYXeZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 02:03, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:


> I very much like this. What is it's unqualified form?
> :flameWar prov:initiatedBy :anEmail .

Uhu.. but now you made a short-hand for a usage with a particular
role. Do we want to go down that road? (you could argue the same for
prov:hadPlan)


> Are you saying that everything going in to in an activity must be either a responsible agent OR a non responsible thing BUT NOT BOTH?

No, sorry, that was not my intention. An agent might be used as a mere
non-responsible entity (for instance the PortraitPhotography activity
using the Person as the subject), *and* at the same time be a
responsible agent (self portrait).  This is perfectly covered by what
we have today, simply state both facts.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples#Self_portrait


I have argued for the case that entities might be 'linked with' an
activity without being used, and without having agent-like
responsibility (wasAssociatedWith). This is the passiveInvolvement
we've talked about in another thread with Reza.

I however feel that an entity can't be initiating an activity without
either being used or be activelyInvolved with it (ie. agent), but I
might be wrong, or this might not be important.


> I think "used" is the catch all for "stuff that went into this activity", but I like what you point out: An innocent bystander may have NOTHING to do with an Activity. The same would have happened whether the bystander was there or not. This bystander doesn't seem to be "used" by the Activity, but is certainly part of the "situational context" in which the activity occurred.

Remember that in PROV we don't talk about "what would have happened" -
but of course if we are talking about agents having responsibility,
then we should also be allowed to talk about entities having
non-responsibility.



> That's some example. Too bad we're not collecting examples somewhere...

Given your kind request I have promptly deposited the example in the
appropriate repositories :-)


http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples#LibC_upgrade_affecting_program_execution

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/b9e12115bcba/ontology/components/wasAssociatedWith/libc.ttl



> So what property do you feel is missing that this example demands?

:exec prov:wasAssociatedWith :libc .


except that it currently makes :libc an agent, which I'm not quite
comfortable with in this context.


That's the passive involvement, if you like. But if we introduce the
notion of active and passive involvement, I feel that as an asserter I
might not always be able to make the distinction. (For instance I
might be watching your game play from afar, and not heard that Daniel
shouted "Hit him! Hit him, so I just assert that he was 'involved'
with the game)


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 13:57:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT