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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:29:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4FC5076F.2060805@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 29/05/2012 17:02, 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?/

I think it's similar to the difference (in RDF) between subClass and 
subProperty, or class and property).

(In the RDF formal semantics, they actually look very similar - properties have 
2-part relational extensions, and types have single-value extensions.  Several 
years ago, Peter Patel-Schneider proposed an alternative semantic model over the 
underlying RDF/XML structure that unified these.)

But I think to try and unify them in PROV-DM would cause more head-scratching 
than it would save - I think the notions of type and role carry some useful 
intuition which may be good to keep.  (Noting that roles in PROV-DM may be 2-way 
and sometimes multi-way relations.)

#g
--


> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 17:34:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 17:34:32 GMT