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: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:40:18 -0400
Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <46F65022-06E0-4651-AD02-DE3F41AF34FF@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
FWIW, what about making prov:oHadRole and prov:sHadRole to distinguish between talking about the subject or object of the Involvement?


-Tim

On May 30, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:41:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:41:25 GMT