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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:26:56 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|fa3b0e1ccded53eb58400323da3b5e62o1GGQx08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F3E7FD0.8040508@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim

On 02/17/2012 03:04 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> BTW, if would be helpful to include URLs to the section that is being 
> discussed.
>

This was really an ontology issue and I didn't link to the ontology file.
Further comments below.
>
>
>>> Usage
>>> --- misses a property hadActivity
>>>
>
>
> prov:hadQualifiedUsage stands in place of hadActivity
>
> these two properties are owl:inverseOf, but we are not defining 
> hadActivity.
> we are using hadQualifiedUsage to point from the Activity to the 
> Involvement to maintain Activities and Entitites and principle instances.
>
> I added this note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage
>
>
>>
>> I don't understand what you expect to change here.  There is no 
>> hadActivity construct in either PROV-O or PROV-DM, so I can't just 
>> change the mapping to include this.
>
> The only requirement DM provides is that we associate the two, which 
> we have done.
>

Ultimately with the model, we support to views, relation oriented or 
class oriented.
When you take the class oriented view, where you have a Usage class, you 
want to be able to talk
about its activity (especially since this should be a functional property).

Prov-dm states that a usage has a constituent activity.
Why can't a property be defined as owl:inverseOf, as you suggested, in 
the ontology?

>>
>> There is a link from the activity to the usage labeled 
>> hadQualifiedUsage.  The hadActivity link would be the inverse of that.
>
> +1
>
>> However, the edges here are meant to be consistent with the direction 
>> "towards the past".
>
> In this case, it is to maintain the Activity as the "more principal" 
> instance, which is done by making it the subject of the triple.
> I've jotted down some 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Mapping_goals
>
>> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with 
>> hadActivity going in the reverse direction.
>>
>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a 
>> hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities.
>
> If proposed, I say -1
>

I don't think the notion of 'principal' should be absolute. It depends 
on what you are doing with the provenance,
and this is left to users.

>>
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Bundle: not part of DM3?
>>
>> I don't understand what would address this issue.  There is a Bundle 
>> section that contains some discussion of Account and RecordContainer. 
>>  Since Account was put on the endangered species list at F2F2, my 
>> impression was that they were not required to be handled in the first 
>> draft of the mapping.
>
> Despite the "endangered species list", I put in a mapping for accounts 
> with the expectation that "Account" would be renamed to "Bundle" (and 
> with the hope that it would just be called "Provenance" because that 
> is what it is...)
>
> @James, I need to add a fourth column of 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account but am fighting latex.
> Could you add the fourth column?
>
> "nil" in a new far left column, except for where "name" appears on the 
> left.
>
>
> BTW, I added a prov:specializationOf triple and axiom to the mapping 
> for accounts. sd:graph
>
>
>>
>> Please be more specific about what aspects of bundles you think 
>> aren't handled here and should be.
>>
>> Proposal: Defer until status of bundles/accounts/record containers is 
>> stable.
>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> There is no time information associated with Entity in DM3
>>>
>>
>> Correct, but I don't see what you think should change (in the 
>> mapping, PROV-O, or PROV-DM).  The rule for entity() records does not 
>> link the entity to a time.  It is possible to link any Thing to a 
>> time, including an Entity, but so what?
>>
>> Proposal: No change.
>
>
> Agreed. What tidbit of what document leads to this question?
>
>

The ontology allows for time to be associated with entities.

>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Association:
>>> hadQualifiedAssociation property missing
>
> missing from where?
>
> it's at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association
>
> I see it in "now" in    [  ] a prov:Entity; prov:specializationOf 
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl>
>
> :hadQualifiedAssociation
>     a owl:ObjectProperty ;
>     rdfs:domain :Activity ;
>     rdfs:range :Association .
>
>
It looks it was added, it's good.
>
>>
>> I interpret this as an issue with Prov-O, which (if addressed by 
>> adding such a property) should be reflected in the mapping.
>>
>> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in 
>> mapping.
>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Association:
>>> hadQualifiedEntity has range Entity,
>>> but it should be Agent ....
>>> hadQualifiedAgent with range Agent,
>
>
> I added this extra triple and the corresponding axiom at 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association
>
Is it added to the ontology?
The mapping no longer needs to show hadQUalifiedEntity
>
>>>
>>
>> This is a PROV-O issue, which if addressed there can be easily 
>> reflected in the mapping.
>>
>> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in 
>> mapping.
>>
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Association
>>> --- misses a functional property hadActivity
>>>
>>
>> Same response as for Usage.
>
> +1
>
> I added a note at 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association
>
>

Same comment as above.  I am OK with your suggestion to have these in 
separate files if appropriate.

>>
>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a 
>> hadActivity property, and reflect any ensuing change in mapping.
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Association
>>> ---- adoptedPlan i would have thought it had to be functional
>>
>> This is a PROV-O issue.
>>
>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O.  No change is needed to the mapping.
>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Delegation: what is it?
>>> is it what is called Responsibility Record in WD3?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure (didn't write this part), but I believe it is a class 
>> that is populated by the identifiers of responsibility records (as 
>> Usage for used, Generation for wasGeneratedBy).  This seems obvious 
>> from the way it is used in the rule, but deserves explanation.
>
>
> I'd love to rename Delegation to Responsibility. Please let us do it.
> Added a note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Responsibility
>
>

>
>>
>> Proposal: Add a sentence to ProvRDF explaining this.
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> No collection
>>>
>>
>> True, and the reason is the same as for Bundle - constructs that were 
>> in-flux or endangered as of F2F2 were not expected to be mapped.
>>
>> Proposal: Defer until collections stabilize.
>
>
> Proposal: ACTION on Stian to add ProvRDF rules.
>
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> HadTemporalValue
>>> ---  is not functional
>>
>> True, but this is a PROV-O issue.
>>
>> Proposal: Re-raise against Prov-O.  No change needed to mapping.
>>
>>> --- has QualifiedInvolvement in its domain but
>
>
> I see that it has a domain of owl:Thing.
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>
>     168  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l168>      <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="hadTemporalValue">
>    
>     169  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l169>          <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/>
>    
>     170  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l170>          <rdfs:label xml:lang="en"
>    
>     171  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l171>              >has temporal value</rdfs:label>
>    
>     172  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l172>          <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&owl;Thing"/>
>    
>     173  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l173>          <rdfs:range rdf:resource="Time"/>
>    
>     174  <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l174>      </owl:ObjectProperty>
>    
>    
>    

Which is too broad.
> -Tim
>    

Luc
>>>      Association and Delegation don't have temporal information
>>>
>>
>> This is an example where the mapping may suggest changes to PROV-DM.
>>
>> It's true that in Prov-DM, these two events don't have temporal 
>> information.  Thus, in PROV-O, we could represent such information 
>> that cannot be expressed in PROV-DM.  But so what?  I don't think we 
>> agreed to the constraint that everything one can express in PROV-O 
>> can also be expressed in PROV-DM; the goal of the mapping was just to 
>> show how to express (almost) everything in PROV-DM in RDF.
>>
>> If you think PROV-O should not be able to express times for 
>> association and delegation because PROV-DM cannot, please raise 
>> against PROV-O.
>>
>> If you think there is a round-tripping property the mapping should 
>> have that it doesn't have, please formulate and raise it as a 
>> separate issue against the mapping.  (This could ultimately imply 
>> changes to several things, so the mapping is an appropriate place to 
>> raise it.)
>>
>> Proposal: Raise question whether Association and Delegation should 
>> have time information against PROV-DM; no change needed to mapping.
>>
>> --James
>> -- 
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 16:27:44 GMT

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