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 11:27:26 -0600
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <274B515B-7B1F-4978-A867-101BCFA8558D@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Typo correction below.

On May 29, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> 
> 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).

I suggest we keep type information simple in our examples and utilize attributes on relations for information that further characterizes the relation (beyond the basic relation type).

--Stephan

> 
> 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 17:29:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 17:29:11 GMT