W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:49:18 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|efbb97ab2ea6a33fe84e1c38458d2a5fo83Doc08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5045F8CE.3040104@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi all,
This issue is now closed.
Luc

PS. Tracker, note follow-on issue ISSUE-475

On 14/06/12 11:22, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Can you explain in what way RDF semantics might be violated?
> If it was the case, then I agree, we should revisit the concept.
>
> Luc
>
> On 06/14/2012 11:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On 14/06/2012 07:44, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> The latest version of prov-dm contains a simplified
>>> version of contextualizationOf worked out with Tim and Simon.
>> Are we referring to
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-contextualization
>> ?  (retrieved 2014-06-14T11:06 (UK time)).  Does this replace
>> "hasProvenanceIn"?
>>
>> If so, I vote -1, for reasons I've already stated.  I don't think this
>> fixes any problem.  I think the whole issue of contextualization, as
>> described, is fraught with potential problems.
>>
>> At the very least, I'd need to see how this plays out in RDF before I
>> could drop my opposition to this - I still think there's a possibility
>> here of violating RDF semantics if the URIs are used unmodified.
>>
>> I apologize that I shall have limited availility to discuss this
>> further this week, but I feel compelled to oppose this as I think it
>> *could* be a serious mistake.
>>
>> #g
>> -- 
>>
>> On 14/06/2012 07:44, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The latest version of prov-dm contains a simplified
>>> version of contextualizationOf worked out with Tim and Simon.
>>>
>>> The solution is very much in line with ISSUE-260 raised by Tim,
>>> since contextualizationOf is a special case of specialization.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am proposing to close this issue pending review by the working group.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/05/12 22:54, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> To try and converge towards a solution, I am
>>>> circulating an example using a ternary hasProvenanceIn.
>>>> I would like to understand if and how we can make it work with
>>>> a simpler relation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two bundles ex:run1 and ex:run2 describe bob's role as a controller
>>>> of two activities. Same bob, two different bundles.
>>>>
>>>> bundle ex:run1
>>>> activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00) //duration:
>>>> 1hour
>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>> bundle ex:run2
>>>> activity(ex:a2, 2011-11-17T10:00:00,2011-11-17T17:0:00) //duration:
>>>> 7hours
>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a2,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A performance analysis tool rates the performance of agents (this
>>>> could be used
>>>> to dispatch further work to performant agents, or congratulate them,
>>>> etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bundle tool:analysis01
>>>>
>>>> agent(tool:Bob1, [perf:rating="good"])
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob) // Bob performance in
>>>> ex:run1 is good
>>>>
>>>> agent(tool:Bob2, [perf:rating="bad"])
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob) // Bob performance in
>>>> ex:run2 is bad
>>>>
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>> The performance analysis tool has to rate two involvements of ex:Bob
>>>> in two
>>>> separate activities.
>>>> Two specialized version of ex:Bob are defined: tool:bob1 and
>>>> tool:bob2, with
>>>> rating good and
>>>> bad respectively.
>>>>
>>>> tool:Bob1 is linked to ex:Bob in run1, and tool:Bob2 is linked to
>>>> ex:Bob in
>>>> run2, with the following
>>>>
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob)
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is expressed about ex:Bob in bundle tool:analysis01 (except
>>>> that this
>>>> is an alias
>>>> for tool:Bob1 and tool:Bob2).
>>>>
>>>> It is suggested that the ternary relation could be replaced by
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> and
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the point of
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> since tool:Bob1 is not a topic in ex:run1.
>>>>
>>>> Also, we now seem to have made ex:Bob a topic of tool:analysis01,
>>>> because
>>>> the following expression.
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>>>>
>>>>  From tool:analysis01, where do I find provenance about ex:Bob?
>>>> It look like this has become a dead end in this graph.
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to introduce:
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now we would have:
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2)
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>>>>
>>>> Which means that:
>>>>
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>>>>
>>>> ... would lead us to believe that good rating is due to slow
>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>> Can the proposer of the separate binary relations explain how this
>>>> example can
>>>> work?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Luc

-- 
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, 4 September 2012 12:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:51:06 GMT