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

Re: prov-o review / comments

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:44:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnjoLCSoryKD=frj=24RoDhmnV6ZZ_LX-0_iKcymDVMdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:22, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:


>> there is a rdfs:comment on this though:
>> "TODO: Shouldn't Quotation be a subtype of Derivation (and same for the binary relations?) -Tim  -- "
>
> So, should it?

I've thought about this. I think it depends on how DM interprets ids
and attributes to survive to what we call superproperties. Generally
it seems attributes and ids are not inherited up, so for instance:

  wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, [ fred="soup" ] )
implies
  tracedTo(e2, e1)
but not
  tracedTo(e2, e1,  [ fred="soup" ])

--- from this I interpret that prov:Derivation should not be a
subclass of prov:Trace - because then the attributes to the derivation
would also apply to the trace.


while in WD3 [1] it says:

hasOriginalSource is a strict sub-relation of wasDerivedFrom

so:
  hasOriginalSource(e2, e1, [ fred="soup" ] )
implies:
  hasOriginalSource(e2, e1,  [ fred="soup" ] )


and prov:Source should be a subclass of prov:Derivation.

So that was my quick interpretation on how to build the involvement hiearchy.



However the newer, split DM has changed some of these semantics, I am
not now (quickly) able to find any relation subtypes that cause
'inheritence' of attributes and record id. The DM constraints [2] does
not seem to inherit attributes, but allow 'any' attributes ("for some
gAttr") in the inferred relations, except for this - perhaps strange
one:

If the records entity(e,attrs) and wasAssociatedWith(a,e) hold for
some identifiers a, e, and attribute-values attrs, then the record
agent(e,attrs) also holds. So to be WD4 compliant we should not have
any hierarchy of prov:Involvement beyond them being involvements.

Luc - is this the correct interpretation?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 15:45:38 GMT

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