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

Re: prov-o review / comments

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:15:25 -0500
Message-Id: <457E89F4-D890-43FC-9D2A-2940556E2560@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
prov-wg,

> 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.


For the sake of simplicity, I would like to propose that we follow Stian's suggestion regarding the subclass hierarchy under Involvement.
The critical aspect that we are conveying with the Involvement hierarchy is that we are referencing some binary relation to an Activity, Entity, or Agent.
Anything further is not provided by the hierarchy, at the cost of confusion.

Does anyone have an objection to flattening the hierarchy to "stop" at the primary Elements (Activity, Entity, Agent)?

prov:Involvement
    prov:ActivityInvolvement
        prov:Generation
        prov:Inform
        prov:StartByActivity
    prov:EntityInvolvement
        prov:AgentInvolvement
            prov:Association
            prov:End               # This raised a level
            prov:Start              # This raised a level
            prov:Attribution
            prov:Responsibility
        prov:Derivation
        prov:Source         # This raised a level
        prov:Revision      # This raised 2 levels
        prov:Quotation
        prov:Usage
    prov:Trace  # This raised a level (b/c it refers to either Activities or Entities)

The property hierarchy would be free to differ from the class hierarchy.

In the absence of objections, I will make the change by the end of the week.

Regards,
Tim



> 
> 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 Tuesday, 6 March 2012 16:16:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT