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

Re: prov-o review / comments

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:01:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4F564301.1020502@vu.nl>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Looks good. I think this will simplify the presentation and leave the 
subproperty hierarchy to the properties. To follow your pattern, I would 
move AgentInvolvement up one level as well:

So at the top leve:

prov:Involvement
--- prov:ActivityInvolvement
--- prov:EntityInvolvement
--- prov:AgentInvolvement

cheers,
Paul

Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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 17:05:13 GMT

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