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: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:43:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6z3OtCq13Vr7FCMrsG2s7DwZPiyhAhq1BDtUsQduBFr_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,
Comments are interleaved:

1.

>  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.
>
>
Again, the current construct in owl file is "Usage (class)
->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> Activity (class).

Can you please clarify if you are suggesting that we introduce a new
property called hadActivity that is just an inverse of hasQualifiedUsage
(and does not capture any additional information)?


-----------------------------------
2.

> 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.
>
>
> So, this is resolved?


---------------------
3.

> 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.
>
> Entity is not associated with Time anymore.

But, can you please clarify whether DM will allow only Activity to be
associated with time, in other words Generation, Usage, etc. cannot be
associated with Time (else we will have to allow QualifiedInvolvement and
many - not all, of its subclasses to be associated with Time, which will
push prov-o out of RL profile)?


------------------------
4.

> 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.
>
> So, this point is resolved?

------------------------
5.

> 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
>
> Agent is subclass of Entity, hence an application can specify an Agent to
be range of the hadQualifiedEntity property. Please clarify if you are
proposing creation of a new property called hadQualifiedAgent? (though it
should be defined outside of PROV)


------------------------
6.

> 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.
>
> I am not sure I understood - the current construct in owl ontology
"Association (class) -> hasQualifiedAssociation (property) -> Activity
(class)" models this information.

What should change?


------------------------
7.

> 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.
>
> The DM3 clearly states in Section 5.3.2.1, "An activity *may* be
associated with multiple plans."

So, we are consistent with DM3.

------------------------
8.

>
> 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
>
>
> Delegation has been renamed to Responsibility (we will discuss this during
our PROV-O call tomorrow for consensus).

------------------------
9.

> 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.
>
>
> I guess this point is also resolved?

------------------------
10.

> 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.
>

First, we need clarification as to whether DM will allow only Activity to
be associated with Time?


Best,
Satya


>   -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 Sunday, 19 February 2012 23:44:09 GMT

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