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

Re: modeling macted's example

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:48:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKc1nHe-urR6+UZhjrWWi=130raE1z1p33jW4SHoNCkab-RSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

> I don't think you have characterised the situation of this record on the world in your suggestion. I may want to distinguish a copy of this record I obtained from a provenance server from the one I found elsewhere.

I don't see a contradiction between what I was suggesting and the
above. Adapting the example slightly:

 wasGeneratedBy (acc1, recording)
 wasStartedBy (recording, asserter1)
 wasGeneratedBy (acc1receivedToday, emailing)
 wasGeneratedBy (acc1fromServer, downloading)
 specializationOf (acc1receivedToday, acc1)
 specializationOf (acc1fromServer, acc1)

> Furthermore, I may want to characterise it in different ways: e.g. A record using core constructs only, or following some specific pattern, etc.  How do you go about this?

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're intending. In your
example, if you mean a subset of the records in the account, wouldn't
that be a different entity rather than just a different
characterisation? It seems equivalent to comparing a report with a
section of that report. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.

Thanks,
Simon


> We should maybe try to introduce other characterisations in the example.
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 27 Jan 2012, at 18:03, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> It makes sense to me, and I could accept it. It matches what I
>> understand to be the three-level view discussed.
>>
>> On the other hand, it may not matter that the account can change as
>> long as the provenance assertions about it stay true. So I could also
>> be happy with a two-level view in which the following is valid:
>>  wasGeneratedBy(acc1, emailing)
>>
>> The PROV-DM spec says "an entity [is] an identifiable characterized
>> thing. An entity fixes some aspects of a thing and its situation in
>> the world, so that it becomes possible to express its provenance, and
>> what causes these specific aspects to be as such."
>>
>> We can say that acc1 is identifiable, it is characterised, it is a
>> thing, and it is possible to express its provenance, so it is an
>> entity. It is only distinct in that it is not a specialisation of some
>> other entity, and is characterised merely by being that account. It is
>> in it's nature as an entity that we can express it's provenance using
>> PROV-DM.
>>
>> Both two and three-level views seem OK to me, but the two-level view
>> might be less confusing to explain. Following MacTed's terms in the
>> telecon, we could say: data is something you can express the
>> provenance of, provenance is metadata, but metadata is also itself
>> data.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 27 January 2012 17:28, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I thought I would take a go at modeling part of MacTed's provenance of
>>> provenance example.
>>>
>>> Here's the description "i have a table, built in 1727 by joe smith ..."
>>> I would model this in prov dm as:
>>>
>>> entity(table)
>>> wasGeneratedBy(table, built, 1727)
>>> activity(built)
>>> wasAssociatedWith(built,joe smith)
>>>
>>> Now to talk about the provenance of that provenance (generated by an
>>> email activity), I think I would do the following:
>>>
>>> acccount(acc1,
>>>     entity(table)
>>>     wasGeneratedBy(table, built, 1727)
>>>     activity(built)
>>>     wasAssociatedWith(built,joe smith)
>>> )
>>>
>>> entity(acc_entity_id, [perspectiveOn=acc1])
>>> wasGeneratedBy(acc_entity_id, emailing)
>>>
>>> To me we can't just say
>>>
>>> wasGeneratedBy(acc1, emailing) because the account may change and also
>>> different people may take different perspectives on the account. So we
>>> need to do a "freezing" operation thus making it into an entity. Then we
>>> can talk about it's provenance.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Simon Miles
>> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>
>> Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/
>>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 11:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC