Re: PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of prov:entity? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

Ok, so it's the other way around, that does make sense.

I wouldn't be opposed to adding this. Basically the only things that need
to change are:
- make prov:pairValue a subproperty of prov:entity
- make prov:KeyValuePair a subclass of prov:EntityInfluence
- add an explanatory paragraph, explaining that a prov:Dictionary is
influenced by the entities that form it. (Which sounds logical, if you put
it this way)

correct?

Tom

2013/3/25 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Tom,
>
> Apologies for rocking the boat with my off-list comment.
>
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be> wrote:
>
> Luc raised some concerns about making prov:pairValue a sub-property of
> prov:entity in yesterday's telecon.
> If we decide to make prov:pairValue<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#pairValue>a sub-property of
> prov:entity <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#p_entity>,
> that would imply that prov:pairValue now has the domain
> prov:EntityInfluence<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence>.
>
>
>
> This makes sense from the qualification perspective, since the
> KeyValuePair is adding the detail of some "key" for some existing
> prov:hadMember Entity "value".
>
> The Entity :bar existed just fine on its own, then when some Dictionary
> decided to come along and shove it into some "key bin" called "foo", the
> KeyValuePair is the (membership) qualification for how the Entity :bar
> influenced the Dictionary (and also includes the key used: "foo").
>
>
> Would this mean that we have to make prov:KeyValuePair<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#KeyValuePair>a subclass of
> prov:EntityInfluence<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence>as well?
>
>
> Yup.
>
> This seems weird and counter-intuitive to me.
>
>
> When starting with Entity :bar and wanting to move to a KeyValuePair to
> place it into "key bin foo", then yes, it can seem *un*intuitive (though,
> not sure about *counter* intuitive).
> But, when you make a KeyValuePair, you're implying some Dictionary -- and
> you've influenced that Dictionary by placing a new Entity into it.
> The Entity influenced the Dictionary by becoming its member, with the
> additional detail of the key.
>
> ^^ EntityInfluence, Dictionary, prov:hadMember, KeyValuePair
>
> It would imply that a dictionary would have some influence on all its
> members.
>
>
> Other way around. The Entities placed into the Dictionary influenced the
> Dictionary.
>
>
> -Tim
>
> Tim, could you share your views on this?
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> 2013/3/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of prov:entity?
>> [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647
>>
>> Raised by: Tom De Nies
>> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>>
>> Came up in an off-list conversation with Tim about the PROV-O of
>> dictionaries. It appears to be useful to make prov:pairValue a subproperty
>> of prov:entity. This way applications could use spec-level constructs to
>> "accidentally" "understand" part of the "brand new construct".
>>
>> Nice phrasing of the rationale by Tim:
>> "Having prov:pairValue is a very nice subproperty for these uninterested
>> in the alignment with qualifications, but still provides those that do care
>> about qualifications a treat."
>>
>> I see no real problems with adding this for the next release. Is this
>> acceptable to the group or did we miss some consequences?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>