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

Re: prov-o review / comments

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:31:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4F564A0E.1050703@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi Tim,

I agree that the properties can be free to differ from the "Involvement" 
hierarchy.

Regarding the flattening that you are suggesting in the Involvement 
hierarchy, I am wondering if it may yield some issues later on. In 
particular, if there are people who want to inject some inference rules 
(constraint) in the ontology. For example, an inference rule that can be 
applied to prov:Association should be also applicable to prov:End and 
prov:Start (according to the DM), but the flattening suggested will 
remove that implication. I don't think that the issue I am raising is 
blocking, but I would like to know if people already thought of it.

Thanks, khalid


On 06/03/2012 16:15, 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 17:32:28 GMT

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