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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-384 (prov-role-in-attribution): prov:role in attribution or not? [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:02:04 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8f4280008341798510f881c032017cd3o4SH2808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FC4F2FC.1000707@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim and Paul,

We should also add it to Invalidation (because there is an activity).

So, it looks like, if we follow Tim's suggestion, roles would be
allowed on all qualified relations, except Derivation and Communication.
Why not these now?

This brings up a question: /what is the difference between prov:role and 
prov:type?/


These are examples of prov:role in prov-dm.

     wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Paolo, -, [ prov:role="editor" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Simon, -, [ prov:role="contributor" ])
     wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [ 
prov:role="editor" ])
     wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Simon, [ 
prov:role="contributor" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag1, -,     [ prov:role="loggedInUser", 
ex:how="webapp" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag2, ex:wf, [ prov:role="designer", 
ex:context="project1" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(a, ag1, [ prov:role="loggedInUser" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(a, ag, [ prov:role="operator" ])
     used(ex:div01, ex:cell, [ prov:role="divisor" ])

They could have been written as (Sorry for the sometime poor choice of 
name, but you should get
the idea)

     wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Paolo, -, [ 
prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsEditor" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Simon, -, [ 
prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsContributor" ])
     wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [ 
prov:type="WasAttributedToEditorEditor" ])
     wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Simon, [ 
prov:type="WasAttributedToEditorContributor" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag1, -,     [ 
prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsLoggedInUser", ex:how="webapp" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag2, ex:wf, [ 
prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsDesigner", ex:context="project1" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(a, ag1, [ 
prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsLoggedInUser" ])
     wasAssociatedWith(a, ag, [ prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsOperator" ])
     used(ex:div01, ex:cell, [ prov:type="UsedAsDivisor" ])

It feels that all role information can be expressed as type.

So,
1. when should we encode this kind of information with prov:type and 
when should do with prov:role.
2. what distinguishes prov:role from prov:type?
3. what's the definition of prov:role
4. should we drop prov:role, and just use prov:type?

Luc


On 05/29/2012 02:54 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Currently, only Association (or Start, End, Usage, Generation) may use hadRole.
>
> Looking back, I see that one of the prov-o examples violates this:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html#qualifiedResponsibility
> by putting a role on a Delegation.
>
>
> Association, Attribution, and Delegation are the three ways to ascribe responsibility.
>
> May we relax hadRole and permit its use on Attribution and Delegation?
>
> (so, for this issue, +1; and a new issue to add it to Delegation, too :)
>
> -Tim
>
>
> On May 26, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi Luc,
>>
>> It's unclear to me if attribution has an underlying activity. If we
>> agree on that then the definition falls out and we should could use
>> prov:role with respect to activity.
>>
>> I guess the argument could be that there is always an activity that
>> links the agent to an entity in the end. Is that what we say in the
>> end?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
>> Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
>>      
>>> PROV-ISSUE-384 (prov-role-in-attribution): prov:role in attribution or not? [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
>>>
>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>>
>>> In the example,
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-attribution,
>>> we write:
>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [prov:role="editor"])
>>>
>>>
>>> But in
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-attribute-role
>>> we say:
>>> The attribute prov:role denotes the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, and end.
>>>
>>>
>>> So,
>>> 1. Do we want to accept prov:role in Attribution?
>>>   (or, it's not a prov:role but prov:type we should use?)
>>>
>>> 2. If yes, does it mean the definition of prov:role needs to be changed?  where is the activity?
>>>
>>> 3. Should we have an optional activity in Attribution?
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> --
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> Knowledge Representation&  Reasoning Group
>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>> Department of Computer Science
>> VU University Amsterdam
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    

-- 
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 16:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 16:02:56 GMT