PROV use for a Contributor Attribution Model

Hello, I wanted to share a modeling specification for representing contributions to research-related artifacts called the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which partially overlaps in scope with PROV. It is still an early effort, and developing documentation is available here [1]. I will briefly summarize some context relevant to my question below, about the possibility of PROV alignment and re-use.



The scope of the CAM data model is specifically limited to representing the nature of an agent's contribution to a research-related artifact.  It is meant to be used as a module within a larger data model that captures the complete semantics of a given domain or use case.  Its driving use cases require as *simple* and *direct* a model as possible for representing contribution metadata.  Accordingly, we define a three-object structure in which a Contribution object mediates the link between an Entity (aka Artifact) and a contributing Agent.  The Contribution object holds attributes to describe when, where, how, and in what context the contribution was made.  See here [2].



We of course explored how we might use PROV to implement this structure, but ran up against an issue that I have seen previously debated in this forum (see [3], [4], [5], [6]) concerning restrictions on prov:Attribution objects - which are analogous to cam:Contributions in that they link an Entity to a contributing Agent.  Specifically, PROV does not permit things like Roles, Plans, and Locations to hang from this class of objects.  Rather, they are permitted only on qualified relations involving an Activity (e.g. an Association, Generation, or Usage).  Because of this, use of PROV to address our needs would require a four object model that includes an Entity, Activity, Association, and Agent.



This additional complexity was one of the main reasons we decided to develop the CAM model. We will of course provide mappings to PROV, but we would like to explore if/how we might use PROV directly to build the simpler structure we need.  I was wondering if, given the history of questions and requests concerning the aforementioned restrictions on Attributions, we might revisit if/how these restrictions might be relaxed in a way that mitigates the concerns that motivated them in the first place - specifically, ambiguity about whether the Artifact or Agent participating in a qualified Attribution bears the role.  Alternatively, if this ship has sailed, perhaps there is a mechanism that would allow us to define a PROV extension or profile that meets our needs in a PROV compliant way.



Thanks for your consideration, and we look forward to exploring alignment opportunities.

 Matthew Brush



[1]CAM ReadtheDocs Home:  https://contributor-attribution-model.readthedocs..io/en/latest/index.html

[2] CAM Information Model:  https://contributor-attribution-model.readthedocs.io/en/latest/info_model/index.html

[3] Question about attaching Roles to Attribution objects: https://lists.w3..org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2018Jun/0004.html

[4] Another question related to this: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384

[5] 'Resolution' on the role question: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-532_.28Role.29

[6] Time/Location attributes on Attribution objects: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#ISSUE-530_.28attributes.29


-------------------------
Matthew H. Brush, PhD
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology
Translational & Integrative Sciences Lab
Oregon Health and Science University
Portland, OR, USA
brushm@ohsu.edu<mailto:brushm@ohsu.edu>