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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:44:02 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c7a3429085ec63ec6b2513f9c3131fc4o1J8i808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F4207D2.6050706@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya

I haven't had a chance to go through Stian's revised ontology, and study it.
So, I am only answering a few points below

On 02/19/2012 11:43 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 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)?

See 4th bullet point in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#record-Generation
Likewise, for Usage, etc.

>
> ------------------------
> 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.

4th bullet point of  5.3.2.1 indicates a single plan, for a given 
association.

The sentence you quote is indeed in the text, but is ambiguous. To be 
aligned with the 4th bullet point,
it should be read: An activity /may/ be associated with multiple plans, 
by means of multiple association records.


Luc

>
> ------------------------
> 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  <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax:+44 23 8059 2865  <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk  <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm  <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>          
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 20 February 2012 08:44:40 GMT

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