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: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:19:34 -0600
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2FD15482-B507-480A-9423-16884F343618@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On May 29, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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?

prov:role was a designated example of using attributes on a relation.  One benefit with this is that the role could be further characterized by the value of the attribute.  In RDF terms (since I do not know how it would work in PROV-N) the property prov:role would reference prov:Role instance, which would provide further description.

You could put the role information into a specialized association type; and you could do the same for any conceivable relation attribute.

It's a modeling decision.  I suggest we keep type information simple in our examples and utilize attributes and relations for information that further characterizes the relation (beyond the basic relation type).

We could of course to both, but I do not see a benefit to readability of our examples if we do.

> 3. what's the definition of prov:role

Currently stated as " the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, and end."  

We should probably adjust the definition since agent is no longer a subclass of entity.

> 4. should we drop prov:role, and just use prov:type?

No.

> 
> 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 17:20:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 17:20:59 GMT