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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-385 (haProvenanceIn-complexity): The hasProvenbanceIn relation is over-complicated [prov-dm]

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=QhXXAk_me6HqTOZVce2HLS7+BSqwcOUuGguDTHk9bUzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Can't that be decomposed into:

hasProvenanceIn(ex:report1,bob:bundle4)
alternateOf(alice:report1, ex:report1)

?

We should focus on re-using constructs rather than implicitly
re-introducing them into relations like this. Especially since the idea of
a target is entirely optional, as bob and alice may already be using the
same URIs.

Jim

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Graham,
>
> Like PROV-AQ, we need a target.
> Example 47 illustrates the need for it:
>
>  hasProvenanceIn(alice:report1, bob:bundle4, ex:report1)
>
> In the current bundle, there is a description for alice:report1.
> More provenance can be found for it in bundle bob:bundle4, under the name
> ex:report1.
>
>
> The presence of attributes and id follow the pattern of other qualified
> relations.
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 28/05/12 20:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-385 (haProvenanceIn-complexity): The hasProvenbanceIn relation
>> is over-complicated [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/385<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/385>
>>
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> I'm raising this issue as a placeholder and for discussion.  I didn't
>> notice the arrival of prov:hasProvenanceIn, but based on its appearance in
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/model/**
>> releases/ED-prov-dm-20120525/**prov-dm.html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120525/prov-dm.html>(which AFAIK is not a currently active draft, but a proposal) is rather
>> over-complicated and a bit obscure.
>>
>> My sense is that, especially as this is motivated by PROV-AQ, there are
>> just too many identifiers floating around.
>>
>> Instead of:
>>
>>   hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, target, attrs)
>>
>> Why not just:
>>
>>   hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle)
>>
>> Where subject is based on the URI of an entity, and bundle is based on
>> the URI of a provenance bundle with information about that entity.
>>
>> I would like to understand what  real scenario justifies all the added
>> machinery that has been included with this relation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 21:00:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 May 2012 21:00:11 GMT