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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:01:52 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d630ffa76f88d3c77919747a3eb8f854o4SA1u08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FC49080.3000002@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon and Jim,

Whether we have an id and/or attributes is a secondary question. What we 
need
to clarify is what the concept are involved in this relation.

In principle, I am in agreement with you. In practice, I don't think we 
can do
it with the current alternate relation.

Here is my use case:


    bundle ex:run1
      activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00) 
    //duration: 1hour
      wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
    endBundle

    bundle ex:run2
      activity(ex:a2, 2011-11-17T10:00:00,2011-11-17T17:0:00) 
    //duration: 7hours
      wasAssociatedWith(ex:a2,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
    endBundle


    bundle tool:analysis01

       entity(tool:Bob1, [perf:rating="good"])
       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)  // Bob performance
    in ex:run1 is good

       entity(tool:Bob2, [perf:rating="bad"])
       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob)  // Bob performance
    in ex:run2 is bad

    endBundle



In the bundle tool:analysis01, a tool rates the performance of agents in 
other bundles.
ex:Bob performance in ex:run1 is good, and bad in ex:run2.

If, as you suggest, I use
  alternate(tool:Bob1,ex:Bob)
instead of
   hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)
we do not make explicit the context in which ex:Bob is rated.

Simon seems to suggest we could have a specializationOf over bundles.  I 
think it's too coarse granularity,
and it wouldn't help in this case.

Luc

On 05/29/2012 09:40 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> I tend to agree with Graham and Jim.
> The hasProvenanceIn relation is not a description of provenance, it is 
> about locations of provenance data. It seems unnecessary to apply the 
> same rules as for relations describing the past.
> In particular, I'm not clear how attributes should be interpreted for 
> hasProvenanceIn: attributes of what? If we mean metadata about the 
> bundle pointed to, e.g. its format, I think this goes beyond 
> provenance and would ideally be left to serialisations to 
> appropriately address.
> Having an ID makes sense for entity(), activity(), agent() etc. 
> because we are giving an identifier to something referred to in 
> other PROV descriptions. I'd argue we don't need a general rule of 
> identifying every description, because it's not obviously about 
> provenance and any given serialisation could easily do that where 
> required.
> I agree with Jim that it seems important to use alternateOf here: this 
> seems like the situation that specialisationOf/alternateOf were really 
> designed for. Linked bundles with different IDs for the same entity 
> seem most likely where different asserters provide provenance on the 
> same entity or one asserter provides different accounts of the 
> provenance of an entity. Each bundle then takes a particular 
> perspective on the entity. Where we can be more precise and say one 
> bundle's perspective is a specialisationOf the other, that is even better.
> thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jim McCusker [mccusj@rpi.edu]
> *Sent:* 28 May 2012 21:59
> *To:* Luc Moreau
> *Cc:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-385 (haProvenanceIn-complexity): The 
> hasProvenbanceIn relation is over-complicated [prov-dm]
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>
>         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
>         (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 <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

-- 
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 Tuesday, 29 May 2012 09:02:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 09:02:29 GMT