Re: F2F Decision: Provenance

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I agree that prov:alternativeOf is slightly broader than our use case for
> oa:equivalent, but I'm not (yet) convinced that we need to revert to our
> own specialization.
>
> Is there a situation in which someone would want to use prov:alternateOf
> and it would NOT be consistent with what we want to use it for? If not,
> then I would definitely prefer to keep it.  If yes, then let's create a
> specialization.
>

Good question. I am not completely sure. I could come up with examples but
I am not sure if they translate to real use cases or of they are just
products of my twisted engineer mindset.

For example.

Annotation1 is a note "the subject of the picture is Paolo Ciccarese"
Annotation2 is the same note republished by a different provider
Annotation3 is a semantic tag http://www.hcklab.org/foaf.rdf#me

Annotation1 oa:equivalentTo Annotation2
Annotation1 prov:alternateOf Annotation3

And also, is a translation a prov:alternateOf?
Annotation4 is a note "Parlamento"
Annotation5 is a note "Parliament"
Annotation4 and Annotation5 have different provenance.

is Annotation4 prov:alternateOf  Annotation5?

In my mind oa:equivalentTo is much more constrained than prov:alternateOf

Paolo



>
> The semantics, in my opinion, are derived from the decision to conflate
> Annotation as a concept and the Document that encodes it.  Thus two
> annotation documents are the equivalent if they encode the same conceptual
> annotation, potentially with different metadata and necessarily with a
> different URI.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.