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.


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 

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:


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

Similarly, if we have:


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 

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


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:12 UTC