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

[owl changes] Re: prov-o review / comments

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:46:14 -0400
Message-Id: <1DCFEF34-CAC8-4DD1-99D3-907909E556FA@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I simplified the Involvement hierarchy per the proposal last week and Paul's suggestion below.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/f617b8dca236

Regards,
Tim



On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> 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 Monday, 12 March 2012 14:46:53 GMT

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