Re: F2F Decision: Provenance

Dear Graham,
thank you for your feedback and welcome to the group!

I am assuming
a prov:alternativeOf v
was meant to be
a prov:alternativeOf b

The current definition of oa:equivalent is: The subject and object
resources of the oa:equivalent relationship represent the same Annotation,
but potentially have different metadata such as generator, generated and
serialization format. oa:equivalent is a symmetrical relationship; if A
oa:equivalent B, then it is also true that B oa:equivalent A.

Basically it is a mechanism to allow multiple 'copies' of the same
annotation. Each copy identified by a different URI and can have different
metadata.

Given this and given your explanation, I believe prov:alternativeOf has a
broader meaning than oa:equvalentTo. Maybe we can keep our original
property and declare it a sub-property of prove:alternativeOf?

We would appreciate more feedback from the prov group on this matter.

Best,
Paolo

ps: we will fix prov:generatedAt

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I may be coming late to this party.  Sorry if I grab the wrong end of the
> stick here.  I'm a participant in the prov group, but here am speaking
> strictly for myself - other members of the group may disagree.
>
> ...
>
> prov:alternativeOf isn't quite the same as "equivalence", though it's
> possible that it's similar to ao:equivalent.  I don't know if ao:equivalent
> means more or less than one might expect of "equivalent".
>
> My interpetation of prov:alternativeOf is roughtly
>
> exists(c)
> a prov:specializationOf c
> b prov:specializationOf c
> |-
> a prov:alternativeOf v
>
> where
>
> a prov:specializationOf c means that the resource a is resource c
> constrained to some interval or context or situation.
>
> E.g. (Boston in 1776) prov:specializationOf (Boston)
>
> Following this, we might have
>
> (Boston in 1776) prov:alternativeOf (Boston in 2012)
>
> Are they equivalent?  I'd say not.  But do they in some sense refer to the
> same thing?  I'd say so.
>
> If that kind of semantics works for AO, then fine, but I'm suspecting it
> may be somewhat different to what you might expect.  It's not, for example,
> like the old rdf:Alternate class.
>
> ...
>
> As far as I'm aware, there is no prov:generatedAt property.  Do you mean
> prov:generartedAtTime?  (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#**generatedAtTime<http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#generatedAtTime>
> )
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 01/11/2012 10:39, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I guess the lack of reaction means everyone agrees :-)
>>
>> I may have trouble the very idea of representing oa:Annotation as direct
>> result
>> of the generating, as opposed to the direct result of annotating. But I'll
>> clearly need some more time to get my head around it.
>>
>> One trivial for now is replacing oa:generator with oa:generatedBy.
>> This makes the property seem very close to prov:wasGeneratedBy, in a
>> context
>> where OA and PROV would be used together. While they are quite different
>> in
>> reality: range of oa:generatedBy would be agent, range of
>> prov:wasGeneratedBy is
>> prov:Activity.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>  This part of the discussion covered two primary topics related to
>>> provenance and the W3C Provenance Ontology.
>>>
>>> 1.  Can we replace oa:equivalent with something from the Prov work?
>>>
>>> Decision:  Yes, prov:alternateOf is semantically identical to
>>> oa:equivalent
>>> Thus we'll simply replace all mentions of oa:equivalent in the
>>> specification with prov:alternateOf
>>>
>>> 2.  What is the relationship between the current (simple) provenance
>>> information recorded for an annotation, and the Prov work?
>>>
>>> Decisions:
>>>   - Replace oa:generated with prov:generatedAt, as they are
>>> semantically identical
>>>   - Replace oa:generator with oa:generatedBy, and subclass of
>>> prov:wasAttributedTo
>>>   - Replace oa:annotated with oa:annotatedAt (to follow the generatedAt
>>> pattern)
>>>   - Replace oa:annotator with oa:annotatedBy
>>>   - Include a diagram of the mapping in the specification
>>>
>>> (Diagram attached)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rob&  Paolo
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>