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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:01:06 -0500
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <204E8805-1B9F-4E20-B051-46BCA9A39245@rpi.edu>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>

On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Stian.
> A couple of things: 
> what happened to Timed?

It was on Involvement directly, to avoid needing to name it.


> I think we could have property "agent" subproperty of "entity" with domain "AgentInvolvement" and range "Agent".
> This will address some of the issues that Luc had yesterday about linking entities in associations.

> I realize that with the current restriction (entity only Agent) it may not be necessary, but I think it clarifies things for users.
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 2012/2/21 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46, Daniel Garijo
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> > Why the propery "tracedTo" is not a subproperty of "involved"? It relates an
> > Element to an Element too.
> Should be involved now.
> > Do we need "involved"? What is its use appart from creating a hierarchy?
> It shows that a binary relationship can also be expressed using
> qualified and Involvement. However the link from individual properties
> to that Involvement is not shown - it is by convention only.
> > @Stian: I don't see how Start could be an EntityInvolvement, could you
> > please explain? It is weird to have "End" under
> > activityInvolvement and not "Start" :)
> I know, I don't like it.
> This is due to prov:Start appearing in both
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting_again
> however the second form does not talk about the agent. If I keep Start
> under AgentInvolvement, then the activity-to-activity Starting_again
> scenario would in OWL interpretation introduce a phantom agent.
> So now I left it at the top - but that would allow you to make a Start
> without either the agent and the activity. Perhaps this can be used
> for qualifying prov:startedAt.
> > I agree with Khalid in that "entity" and "activity" properties should be
> > renamed. From a usability pov is confusing to use
> > the same name for classes and properties (even if they are different URIs).
> Yes - we agreed in general earlier to use verb forms in past tense.
> The problem is to make the property name make sense for all the
> subclasses. "hadQualifiedEntity" obviously did not work well.
> > Are we going to delete the subproperties of "qualified"?
> Yes, that was an important aspect of Tim's approach.
> > Since qualified links an element to an Involvement, I think that we could
> > use them wrong:
> > :ent a prov:Entity;
> >       prov:qualified [ a prov:Usage;
> >                             prov:hadRole :role1]
> > This is consistent according to our ontology (usage has some entities, but
> > in the open world assumption it doesn't have to be asserted). Should we
> > allow it?
> There are lots of stupid things which are allowed by the OWL, for
> instance making multiple inconsistent Generations, having
> wasGeneratedAt times that don't overlap the startedAt/endedAt times of
> the generating activity, etc. Checking those kind of things should not
> be the job of the OWL ontology, but by a set a of rules.
> However the ontology should guide the user towards the correct usage.
> That's Tim's approach with the "hadSpatialExtent min 0 Location" kind
> of subclasses - that gives a hint that it could have a location,
> without requiring it.
> However super-properties and super-classes make it look like you can
> use them directly. It now looks like you can say:
> :entity1 prov:qualified [
>  a prov:EntityInvolvement;
>  prov:entity :entity2;
>  prov:hadTemporalExtent :t .
> ] .
> - but this is a half-baked statement where you don't know if we're
> talking about derivation, attribution or quotation. All  you can
> conclude is :entity1 prov:involved :entity2.  Perhaps that's a useful
> statement in a few applications, but for most parts it would be silly.
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 17:01:56 GMT

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