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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-449: Better definition of prov:value [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:09:11 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0587709c82a0efd500d43975ee16b014o83H9D08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|504627A7.6060302@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

I agree with your example.

We could add it, preceded by the following sentence:

Two different entities MAY have the same value for the attribute 
prov:value. For instance,
when two entities, with the same prov:value, are generated by two 
different activities, as illustrated
by the following example.
<<Tim's example to add here>>

Thoughts?
Luc

On 04/09/12 16:58, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim and Jim,
>>
>> Do you want to make a suggestion for a definition of prov:value?
>>
>> I see prov:value as the equivalent of "immediate operands" in 
>> assembly language :
>> "/An operand that is directly encoded as part of a machine 
>> instruction is called an immediate operand/. [1] "
>>
>> So, to get the ball rolling, attempting a definition:
>> prov:value is an attribute whose value is a direct representation of 
>> an entity as a PROV-DM Value(5.7.3).
>
>
> I think this definition is much better. "direct representation" 
> conveys it well and I think is satisfactory.
>
>
> Some nit-picking that shouldn't hold us up:
>
> Informatively, where do you see prov:value fitting with 
> prov:specializationOf and inverse functionality?
>
> It seems that the following two entities could be distinct, where one 
> distinguishing aspect is their "source":
>
> :quote_1
>     prov:value "Four score and seven years ago";
>     prov:wasQuotedFrom <tweet_235>;
> .
>
> :quote_2
>    prov:value "Four score and seven years ago";
>    prov:wasQuotedFrom <intranet_page>;
> .
>
> <tweet_235> owl:differentFrom <intranet_page> .
> :quote_1 owl:differentFrom :quote_2 .
>
>
> Does "Directly represented" imply a degree of inverse functionality? I 
> don't think it should, but it seems to.
>
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> [1] http://chortle.ccsu.edu/assemblytutorial/Chapter-11/ass11_2.html
>>
>> On 17/07/12 17:01, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> Graham noted in his prov-o review [1]:
>>>
>>> [[[
>>>   But, maybe more fundamentally, is there any specified way to express a value that is itself denoted by a URI?
>>>   In OWL terms, this needs an object property. It's OK if ther4e's no such way, as one can always introduce new properties,
>>>   but it seems odd to me that data values are OK but other values are not.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After discussing this with Jim McCusker, I'm convinced that prov:value is the literal analogue to prov:specializationOf.
>>>
>>> In:
>>>        :my_calculation_result prov:value 4.5 .
>>>
>>> or
>>>         :my-copied-test prov:value "For score" .
>>>
>>> Both subjects _are_ specializations of their objects, and their objects have relatively few fixed aspects (abstract mathematical relationship, a string length, etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we want to mix prov:specializationOf into the discussion of prov:value, but this ISSUE is about the need for a clearer definition of prov:value.
>>>
>>> Also, I think the answer to Graham's question is "we have a way to express a value of a URI - prov:specializationOf".
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Review_of_prov-o_july_3_2012_for_last_call#Graham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-449: Better definition of prov:value [prov-dm]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/449
>>>>
>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>
>>>> Although we know that prov:value is very useful,
>>>>
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-value
>>>>
>>>> does not provide a satisfactory definition.
>>>>
>>>> We are copying rdf:value:http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value  which provides an equally unsatisfying definition:
>>>>
>>>> [[[
>>>> rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used in describing structured values.
>>>>
>>>> rdf:value has no meaning on its own. It is provided as a piece of vocabulary that may be used in idioms such as illustrated in example 16 of the RDF primer [RDF-PRIMER]. Despite the lack of formal specification of the meaning of this property, there is value in defining it to encourage the use of a common idiom in examples of this kind.
>>>> ]]]
>>>>
>>>> Can we do better?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>
>

-- 
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 16:09:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:09:48 GMT