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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:01:10 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d690b597b7093cbaba393f07aff2f0e7o2BC1E08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F5DE586.2030400@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi Stephan

As far as I understand, the ontology defines the class Association and 
the properties
agent: AgentInvolvement -> Agent
hadPlan: Association -> Plan

I don't think see any minimum cardinality required here.
So it appears the ontology allows for

:a1 prov:hadQualifiedAssociation [a prov:Association
                                                         hadPlan :pl1]

Why can't we allow it in prov-dm?

Luc



On 03/09/2012 08:47 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
> Did you get my last email on this?
>
> The email with:
>
> "1) If we take an open world view, then I don't think there is an 
> issue where we know that a specific plan was adopted by an otherwise 
> unknown agent.  We can represent the agent, we just won't have any 
> characterizing information about the agent except that it was the 
> agent that adopted this specific plan in this activity.
>
> 2) If that is not desirable, I suggest adding an Activity-Entity 
> Relation to link Plans to Activities with optional information about 
> which Agent(s) used the plan."
>
> It appears some of my emails weren't going out for a while, so you may 
> never have gotten it.  The email never showed up on the list, and I 
> never got a reply so I am not sure you have seen it.
>
> I my preference is 1) and I expect your preference is 2), but I think 
> having an Agent-Activity Association without an Agent will be 
> confusing and it goes against the current definition of the relation. 
>  If a pure Plan-Activity relation is desired we may have to just mint 
> a new relation.
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>> Yes, see my non-converging discussion with Stephan on ISSUE-203.
>>
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> On 9 Mar 2012, at 02:22, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu 
>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure - now we can't have a planned activity without an agent -
>>>> so there will be phantom agents appearing.
>>>
>>> ^^ is there a separate issue for this? It seems odd that an Activity 
>>> can't mention a plan without also bringing an Agent to the game.
>>>
>>> -Tim
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is also no way to say that the associated agent is actually
>>>> *performing* the activity. And so we only know that an agent performed
>>>> something with relation to the activity, and that something might or
>>>> might not have been following the associated plan.
>>>>
>>>> These are DM issues, though.. so you can close this issue. I would
>>>> have to think of a good use-case of a plan/recipe which there is no
>>>> agent following - perhaps that's not possible?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:41, Daniel Garijo
>>>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es 
>>>> <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stian,
>>>>> this issue is still raised and pending review.
>>>>> now we have Plans to link an agent and a plan to an activity,
>>>>> with an Association.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we have addressed this issue, and it could be closed. 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/9/28 Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu <mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t know that it’s a big deal, but I think of hadRecipe as 
>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>> very indirect rather than a subclass of used. I’d like to assert 
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> “software development” PE was intended to satisfy the plan as 
>>>>>> documented in
>>>>>> “Work Breakdown Structure element 2.7” but in a use case like 
>>>>>> that, it seems
>>>>>> a stretch to say the PE used the plan versus that I’m just 
>>>>>> asserting that
>>>>>> the PE was intended to fulfill the plan (perhaps just the 
>>>>>> selection of this
>>>>>> PE versus another one was affected by the plan and, after the 
>>>>>> selection of
>>>>>> the PE, the plan was not directly used to guide it, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org 
>>>>>> <mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org> 
>>>>>> [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Jim McCusker
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:21 AM
>>>>>> To: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>>> Cc: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org 
>>>>>> <mailto:public-prov-wg@w3.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing 
>>>>>> recipe link
>>>>>> [Formal Model]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a 
>>>>>> subproperty of
>>>>>> used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of 
>>>>>> Recipe/Plan already
>>>>>> (this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need 
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> other than used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk 
>>>>>> <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier 
>>>>>> <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now part of
>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>> model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
>>>>>>> isn't that thread relevant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
>>>>>> rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan as a
>>>>>> class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of 
>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>> you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
>>>>>> the plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it 
>>>>>> relies
>>>>>> on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
>>>>>> the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple 
>>>>>> link, and
>>>>>> I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or  be much in
>>>>>> conflict with ISSUE-95.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe
>>>>>> - we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we go for
>>>>>> ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jim McCusker
>>>>>> Programmer Analyst
>>>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>>>>>> Yale School of Medicine
>>>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 
>>>>>> 785-6330
>>>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PhD Student
>>>>>> Tetherless World Constellation
>>>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>>>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
>>>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 12:01:57 GMT

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