Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

Hi Tim,

See below.

On 06/05/2012 11:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Overall, looks pretty good.
>
>

Great, it looks like we are converging.
>
>
> "sharing the facets"
> ->
> perhaps use "presenting aspects" as with the accepted phrasing from 
> the last round of alt/spec definitions?
>

Yes,
>
> BTW, you still have a missing 0 in:
> 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00
>
>
fixed
>
> "A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a restriction of ex:Bob"
> -> ?
> "A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a specialization of ex:Bob"
>

I used contextualization to avoid confusion with the specializationOf 
relation.
>
>
> "defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with 
> associated rating"
> -> (nit)
> "defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with an 
> associated rating"
>
>
> "bade" -> "bad"

Fixed.

>
>
>
> I'm finally comfortable with your modeling of the visualization scenario.
>
>

Great.
Question: in the second example, is it appropriate to write

   entity(tool:report1, [viz:color="orange"])         // is it 
appropriate to add viz attributes to tool:report1 or should we 
specialize it?


or should we have two separate entities


    entity(tool:report1)
    entity(tool:specializedReport1, [viz:color="orange"])
    specializationOf(tool:specializedReport1, tool:report1)


Luc

> -Tim
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I tried to write this up as a separate relation contextualizationOf, 
>> see section 1.3 in [1].
>> I believe this relation is compatible with your rdf encoding. The 
>> only difference, here,
>> is that we make this an identifiable thing.
>>
>>        [
>>            a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
>>            prov:identifier       ex:Bob;
>>            prov:inContext     ex:run2;
>>        ];
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Luc
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
>>
>> On 04/06/2012 23:25, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> Luc,
>>>
>>> (bottom)
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> Some comments/questions below.
>>>>
>>>> On 04/06/2012 13:46, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:16 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During this diamond jubilee WE, I had the opportunity to think 
>>>>>> about Tim and Simon's long emails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with them that we have concepts of alternate and 
>>>>>> specialisation, and we want to reuse them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also came to the conclusion that behind the hasProvenanceIn 
>>>>>> relation, what I really wanted was a form of alternate. But not 
>>>>>> what Tim or Simon are suggesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PROV data model has a shortcoming: the inability to identify 
>>>>>> something in some context. That's what I am trying to address here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The interpretation of
>>>>>>        alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
>>>>>> is that tool:Bob2 is the entity that share aspects of ex:bob as 
>>>>>> described by ex:run2. *Conceptually*, this could be done by 
>>>>>> substituting ex:Bob for tool:Bob2 in ex:run2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate that what I am describing here is not too distant 
>>>>>> from 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215/#record-complement-of, 
>>>>>> which had optional account, and was not received with enthusiasm, 
>>>>>> to say the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coincidentally, Paul shared this paper
>>>>>> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-614/owled2010_submission_29.pdf which 
>>>>>> introduces  rules of the kind
>>>>>> /X counts as Y in context C/
>>>>>> which bears some resemblance with what I am trying to argue for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, my proposal is;
>>>>>> - drop hasProvenanceIn
>>>>>> - drop isTopicIn
>>>>>> - allow for the ternary form of alternate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim and Simon approach by using two binary relations do not offer 
>>>>>> the same level of expressivity.
>>>>>> The also have a technological bias, as well: they require 
>>>>>> querying/reasoning facility.  Therefore,
>>>>>> their suggestion is not suitable for a data model supposed to be 
>>>>>> technology neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A stab at:
>>>>>
>>>>> bundle tool:analysis01
>>>>>      alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
>>>>> endBundle
>>>>>
>>>>> in PROV-O:
>>>>>
>>>>> tool:analysis01 {
>>>>>     tool:Bob2
>>>>>        prov:alternateOf [  ## The use here of bnode is, for once, 
>>>>> actually appropriate :-)
>>>>>            a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
>>>>>            prov:identifier       ex:Bob;   ## The identifier that 
>>>>> is used "over there"   Can't use dcterms:identifier b/c that is a 
>>>>> rdfs:Literal.
>>>>>            prov:inContext     ex:run2;   ## "over there"       
>>>>> Could prov:atLocation be reused?
>>>>>        ];
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this, Tim.
>>>>
>>>> First some questions:
>>>> - why a bnode here?
>>>
>>> bnodes are read "the thing that" and _can_ serve as an existential.
>>>
>>>> - Can you explain the  dcterms:identifier comment?
>>>
>>> 1) The value is the identifier used in the other bundle.
>>> 2) The rdfs:range of dcterms:identifier is a literal "http://foo.com 
>>> <http://foo.com/>", but it is more useful if it is a rdfs:Resource 
>>> <http://foo.com <http://foo.com/>>. With the former, we know that we 
>>> can "try to go there" to dereference the URI.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, assuming that this rdf encoding expresses what was originally 
>>>> suggested, some further questions:
>>>> - have we got indeed a ternary alternateOf relation in prov-dm as I 
>>>> suggested?
>>>
>>> Perhaps. The original binary that we now know and love, and a second 
>>> ternary that "wraps" a URI and a Bundle (that mentions the URI).
>>> The only new things would be:
>>>
>>> 1) The two new predicates prov:identifier and prov:inContext 
>>> (perhaps that should just be called prov:inBundle -- I was swayed 
>>> too far towards DCTerms when I chose that this morning).
>>> 2) The new rule to unwrap your ternary DM into this RDF structure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - or have we got some form of ternary relation 
>>>> isContextualizationOf(e2,e1,bundle)?
>>>
>>> Or, just a binary isContextualized(e1,bundle)?
>>>
>>> And we just stack on an existing alternateOf(e2,e1)...
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, not really sure where we're going with this.
>>> It feels like we're close to wrapping this up, but worried that 
>>> we're in some odd local minima.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm