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

Re: Collections in PROV-O

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:35:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4F451957.5020401@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian,

Thanks for giving this a try.

CollectionAfterInsertion(c2,c1,k1,v1)
CollectionAfterRemoval(c2,c1,k)

Basically, in the design you suggested you introduced relationships 
between c2 and c1, but also between c2 and k1, between c2 and v1, (and 
between c1 and k in the case of removal).

Here, I am wondering if an alternative design that capitalizes on the 
notion of involvement that we introduced in the OWL ontology would be 
better.

The idea is to have two binary object properties: 
wasObtainedAfterInsertion and wasObtainedAfterRemoval (there may be 
other better names) between the collections c1 and c2, and to specify 
information about the key k1 and value v1 (or the key k in the case of 
removal), using involvement.

For example, we can have two classes RemovalInCollection, and 
InsertionInCollection, which can be defined as subclasses of 
CollectionInvolvement, which in turn is a subclass of Involvement. And 
this involvement classes will have object properties that point to the 
key and values.

So now the question is why I think this design is better. If I am not 
wrong, a binary property between two collections c1 and c2, can capture 
all the information we need about insertion or removal. To illustrate 
this, consider that we have:

wasObtainedAfterRemoval(c2,c1).

Given c1 and c2, we can deduce the entries of c1 that were removed to 
obtain c2.

Similarly, if we have:

wasObtainedAfterInsertion(c2,c1)

Then we can deduce information about the pair of <key,value> that were 
inserted in c1 to obtain c2.

In other words, binary properties would be enough to express all what we 
want for insertion/removal in collections. And if we want to specify 
explicitly the information that, we can infer otherwise, then we can use 
involvement.

Please take the above proposal with a pinch of salt, as I may have got 
it completely wrong :-)

khalid



On 22/02/2012 15:04, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to do a first take on collections:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Collections
>
> I'm not very decided on this, and open for directions and ideas. I've
> not added it to the OWL, but the ProvRDF page should hint at what
> subproperties/subclasses are intended.
>
>
> Note that the DM section on Collections still need a fair bit of work
> which I should raise as new issues. (I'll close the old ones that are
> now fixed, such as EmptyCollection).
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:36:06 GMT

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