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

Re: prov-wg: Another name for Qualified?

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:22:09 +0000
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|82cf52fe321895d26529604e746e740eo1H9ME08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D3B62215-AC72-4DB8-B3D6-FD1D9FC9115A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 18 Feb 2012, at 01:03, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

On Feb 17, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

Is too much for prov:?? to be prov:entity ...

That's what we started with. And I haven't seen anything else that is more compelling.

Great.  Btw, this exactly corresponds to the "names" of constituents, listed in the DM.

Is this a WD4 thing? Could you give a pointer to where "names" of constituents is discussed? I couldn't find "consti" in WD4 or WD3.

I meant the names appearing in italic, e.g;

Generation, written wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs) in PROV-ASN, has the following components:

  *   id: an optional identifier identifying a generation;
  *   entity: an identifier identifying a created entity;
  *   activity: an optional identifier identifying the activity that creates the entity;
  *   time: an optional "generation time", the time at which the entity was completely created;
  *   attributes: an optional set of attribute-value pairs that describes the modalities of generation of this entity by this activity.

I see. Thanks.

Will we ever have a set of examples that exercises the constructs in DM (and thus, PROV-O)?
I'm worried that discussing and deciding based on minted examples prevents us from seeing the whole picture.

Agreed. It's now time to build a corpus of examples. My ProvToolbox can make some conversions. Hopefully others will create other converters.

https://github.com/lucmoreau/ProvToolbox ?
What can it do? You're short on wiki pages ;-)

Sorry, it's a tool I have been using to test ideas.
If we start an ASN collection in prov hg, I can look at feeding them through ProvToolbox to get XML to transform to RDF with an XSL.

It parses Asn, generates XML, json, and rdf (partially, sine yesterday)

Cool. What's the best way to get started with the toolbox?
How to run it, etc.

I will create a command line executable and readme next week.

I'd ask someone else to start the ASN collection, since I failed to get traction the first time around.
Apparently my organization wasn't intuitive.

I think you were ahead of us,  we are just catching Up. Maybe you could explain again your structure and how we should use it.

My explanation has been at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components#Example_instance_data
perhaps someone could review and provide feedback?

Will do that too.

In particular, I'm concerned about situations where prov:entity references the subject of the qualified involvement, because it would break the underlying guidance from rdf:Statement.

Is it possible to have prov:entity refer to the subject? Revisions? qualified derivations? I've said this before, but I hope it isn't possible because some Activity should be used instead.

Isn't the class  Involvement too broad in its current form?
Shouldn't the pattern be reused under a different name for
Entity-entity relations and activity-activity relations?

I very much like this suggestion.
By "too broad in its current form", do you mean the 1) OWL axioms defining it, 2) its use, or 3) its naming?

I've had the following in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/8c14d0798b20/ontology/components/QualifiedInvolvement.ttl since Dec 02 2011

I was not familiar with this file.  It's not part of the provOntology.owl file :-(

Victim of design by committee :-/

Is there a plan to align the owl file with your component approach?
Coming back to Ivan's comment, is it an RL profile?

This starts to make more sense to me, now, thanks!

So , to check if understand, would you see prov:Inform ( I think it's the class for wasInformedBy property) to be a subclass of ActivityInvolvement?

Yup! I've added that to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/739984da9cbe/ontology/components/Involvement.ttl

It seems that 'subclass activityInvolvement' stayed in your keyboard ;-)


   a owl:Class;
   rdfs:label "QualifiedEntityInvolvement";
   rdfs:subClassOf prov:QualifiedInvolvement;
   rdfs:subClassOf [
       owl:onProperty prov:qualifiedEntity;
       owl:minCardinality 1;

   a owl:Class;
   rdfs:label "QualifiedEntityInvolvement";
   rdfs:subClassOf prov:QualifiedInvolvement;
   rdfs:subClassOf [
       owl:onProperty prov:qualifiedActivity;
       owl:minCardinality 1;

^^^ this would be "simply named" according to today's discussions with the following \/:

   a owl:Class;
   rdfs:label "EntityInvolvement";
   rdfs:subClassOf prov:Involvement;
   rdfs:subClassOf [
       owl:onProperty prov:entity;
       owl:minCardinality 1;

prov:Generation rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement .

prov:Used rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement .

prov:Association rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement;

    rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty prov:entity;

                      owl:allValuesFrom :Agent ] .

prov:ActivityInvolvement a owl:Class; rdfs:label "ActivityInvolvement"; rdfs:subClassOf prov:Involvement; rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty prov:activity; owl:minCardinality 1; ]; .

The _unstated_ intent is that prov:entity and prov:activity are subproperties of rdf:object .

I understand now the design.
I feel we have made good progress tonight,

Cool. Thanks.


Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 09:22:50 GMT

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