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 18:32:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4F565856.4070705@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 06/03/2012 18:30, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>
>> Hi Khalid
>>
>> I think the inference in the dm is about the properties - not their reifications per say
> Agreed.

Ok.

Thanks, khalid
>
>
>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 18:31, Khalid Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> Since we are being _less_ specific in the proposed hierarchy, they are free to provide the [:End subclassOf :Association] if they need it.
> I am betting that most will not need :End to be an :Association, but what they really need to know is that it qualifies the involvement of an Agent (AgentInvolvement).
>
>
>>> I don't think that the issue I am raising is
>>> blocking, but I would like to know if people already thought of it.
> The model in DM is upheld by the subproperties, and the Involvements still provide the trigger to the binary relations.
> These are the two most important aspects w.r.t. modeling.
> Meanwhile, I'm trying to gain some simplicity and readability at the (comparatively small) expense of requiring a reasoning expert to include a subclass relation, which they'll know how to handle.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>>> 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 18:33:22 GMT

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