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 17:38:27 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ef08c7f51a76ce83bed1bfda1c1c0b58o2BHcV08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F5E3493.7080801@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi Stephan,

On 03/12/2012 05:32 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephan,
>>
>> I repeat what I said before, it's not unreasonable to allow for the 
>> plan to be specified and not the agent
>> (with the understanding that the agent exists, but has not be asserted).
>
> Perhaps we are closer than we thought.
>
Good!
> I agree with this statement, and always have.  I believe my original 
> argument was precisely this.  The plan is still being adopted/followed 
> by ~some~ agent, even if we don't specify any information about that 
> agent.  This is an existential qualifier, and would be modeled using 
> the owl:someValuesFrom value constraint in OWL, but I am not sure how 
> to say it in PROV-N.
>
> Is there a way to make an existential quantification using PROV-N?  I 
> did not connect setting agent to optional with the statement you make 
> above and which I believe we both agree with.
>
> Perhaps some confusion arises from my assumption that PROV-N was 
> treating the model as if it were closed world.  Why else would you put 
> 'optional' on attributes when this is the default in OWA?
>

PROV-N is a concrete syntax for a data model. The term 'optional' 
applies to the syntax.

For the semantics, in part II of prov-dm, we can say that:

if wasAssociatedWith(a,-,pl) holds that there exists an agent ag, such 
that wasAssociatedWith(a,ag,pl) holds.

We write the existential quantifier in the underpinning rules, not in 
the syntax.

Does it help?

Cheers,
Luc

> --Stephan
>
>> It's a *convenience short-cut*,
>> it does not change the intention of the ActivityAssociation.
>>
>> Why should we introduce an extra relation:
>> hadPlan(id,a,p,-,attr)
>> when
>> wasAssociatedWith(id,a,-,p,attr)
>> can do it?
>>
>> To some extent, this applies to all optional arguments of prov-dm,
>> it was indicated today in the prov-o call, that the prov-rdf 
>> translation assumes that
>> the corresponding line(s) have to be dropped for missing arguments.
>> (If I understood correctly)
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 03/12/2012 04:30 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> PROV-O cardinality may not be completely aligned with the DM at 
>>> present.  I suggest we review this once we have a forward direction 
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> In DM:
>>>
>>> Why make Agent optional in an Activity-Agent Relation?
>>>
>>> The plan is currently qualifying information about the relationship 
>>> between an activity and the associated agent.
>>>
>>> plan: an /optional/ identifier for the plan adopted by the agent in 
>>> the context of this activity;
>>>
>>> By the current definition in DM it does not make sense to have a 
>>> plan in the association ("... plan adopted by the agent in the 
>>> context of this activity") without a corresponding agent.
>>>
>>> Does an Activity-Agent relation make sense with no agent?
>>>
>>> If we are intent to associate a plan to an activity directly, then 
>>> we should use a specialization of Entity-Agent Relation in which 
>>> agents are optional and are used to qualify the relationship between 
>>> the activity and plan.  This may be the only way forward.
>>>
>>> hadPlan(id,a,p,ag,attr)
>>>
>>> --Stephan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 
>>>>>>>>>> <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 <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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>      
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>      
>

-- 
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 17:39:11 GMT

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