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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:16:39 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5760772A-6036-4BC7-BEAA-E88891269210@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Luc and Graham,


On May 30, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> On 29/05/2012 22:37, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Tim, Stephan, Graham,
>> 
>> So, you are all defending role, as an alternative way of specializing relations.
>> OK.
>> 
>> So, we now need to agree:
>> 1. on the domain of prov:hadRole
> 
> By domain here, I assume you mean the relations for which it may be an attribute.  The easy answer would be "all of them".

"all of them" would be much easier to wrestle.

> 
>> 2. on a definition of role that works with this domain
>> 
>> Currently: we have:
>> /A role is the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context
>> of a usage, generation, association, start, and end./
> 
> Yes, the wordsmithing could be tricky if it is to preserve the intuitions.
> 
> Technically, I think it's just introducing a subrelation of the relation to which it is applied.  (So if a binary relation is a set of pairs, its a subset of those pairs, similarly for N-way relations).


I don't follow the sub relation point. Is this following from the previous points (that I also don't follow):

>>> 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).





> 
>> We seem to be in agreement that we want roles also for
>> - invalidation
> 
> Consistency and uniformity would suggest so, though in this case I'm not sure what the intuition would be.
> 
>> The current definition works for: usage, generation, start, end, invalidation.
>> 
>> This definition:
>> 
>> /A role is the function of an entity or an *agent* with respect to an activity
>> 
>> /would also work for association.
>> 
>> It's not clear this definition would work for:
>> - delegation
>> actedOnBehalfOf(ag2,ag1,a)
>> a role for which agent ? responsible? delegate?
> 
> I think it's not so far off - it would presumably be some subset of the roles that ag1 has with respect to a that are being delegated?
> 
>> - attribution
>> no activity here.
> 
> I think the notion of role works here: e.g. you etal are attributed as editors of PROV-DM, several more of us are attributed as authors.
> 
>> - communication?
>> wasInformedBy(a2,a1) here no entity
> 
> Again, I think it could apply here.  As a student, my writing of an essay would be informed by my learning of material;  as a miscreant, my writing of a penance piece (remember "lines"?) could be informed by my misdeed.  I think "student" and "miscreant" stand here as roles.
> 
>> - derivation?
>> wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,a,g,u)
>> a role for which entity?
> 
> Neither, or both.  The role designates a relationship between the entities, not about one of them in isolation.

Yes, but the role name changes depending on which side you choose to describe. "pupil" becomes "teacher".

I think the resource cited by the prov:involvee (i.e, rdf:object) should be the one whose role we should be describing with hadRole.



> 
>> So, I would propose:
>> /A role is the function of an entity or an *agent* with respect to an activity,/
>> /in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, end, and invalidation.
>> /For all these relations, an activity is subject or object.
> 
> My inclination would be to start from a simple technical definition that can apply to all relationships, and then to illustrate it with a series of examples, rather than to try and capture all the (sometimes diverse) intuitions in the definition.


+1

Can we relax the domain of prov:hadRole to simply prov:Involvement?

Thanks,
Tim




> 
> #g
> --
> 
>> On 29/05/12 18:29, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> 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 Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:17:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:17:27 GMT