W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-142 (Tlebo): Can roles only be Literals? [Data Model]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 15:26:42 -0700
Message-Id: <30CC2C19-1DE7-4636-AEAB-F061E6881455@rpi.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 6, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> I am not in favour of this,
> 
> :-(
> 
> 
>> as explained in the previous email.
> 
> You said:
> 
> "It is intentionally that we use typed literals here, and not identifiers.
> 
> If we allow identifiers, then in effect we would have introduced a new
> relation;  it would be better defined as prov-dm relation, rather
> than hidden in a qualifier."
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that I don't understand the differences between DM's literals, identifiers, relations, and qualifiers well enough.

+1

> 
> If by "relation" you mean Usage, Control, Participation, and Generation, then YES I agree adding role to this would be concerning.
> 
> I like how it is currently stated:
> "Qualifiers can be associated to relations, namely use and wasGeneratedBy, in order to further characterize their nature. Role is a pre-defined qualifier."
> 
> which lets me describe the relation by specifying the role that the Entity played.
> 
> I just don't want to tie our hands with a prov:role range of rdfs:Literal - we should be able to dereference the values of prov:role to find out more about it through Linked Data.

+1

--Stephan

> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> What this shows, is that this WG can't reach consensus
>> on role, and we might as well drop it from the model,
>> because it uses too much bandwidth!
> 
> 
> I just want a literal to be a Resource. Them I'm happy.
> If we drop role, PROV-DM will be MUCH less useful.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> We should seriously consider this proposal!
>> 
>> Luc
>> 
>> On 06/11/11 15:46, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hi Jim
>>> 
>>> I think to address Tim's issue we should just allow qualifiers to be Literals or Identifiers as defined by prov-dm.
>>> 
>>> Then one can use uris for roles without breaking compatibility with prov-DM
>>> 
>>> Was that your suggestion ?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 16:19, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Make Roles resources like Entities. Classes of Roles (Creator,
>>>> Publisher, PrincipleInvestigator) are instantiated for each Entity. Of
>>>> course, this is rather similar to what's been rejected (?), but is
>>>> still the best choice, IMO. This would be, for instance, "Barack
>>>> Obama's role as president", as opposed to "the role of president",
>>>> which would be a class.
>>>> 
>>>> Role could also be an extension of skos:Concept and allow you to
>>>> express "the role of president" directly without custom instantiation.
>>>> 
>>>> Jim
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, so, what's alternative suggestion ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>>> University of Southampton
>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6 Nov 2011, at 12:59, "Jim McCusker"<mccusj@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a misunderstanding of a URI literal versus URI resource. When
>>>>>> a URI resource is used, it can link to that resource when it has
>>>>>> assertions made about it. This is not possible or intended with URI
>>>>>> literals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But doesn't this include URIs by means of typed literals?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>>>>> University of Southampton
>>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6 Nov 2011, at 01:20, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker"<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-142 (Tlebo): Can roles only be Literals? [Data Model]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/142
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>>>> On product: Data Model
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> prov-dm, 5.5.1 Qualifier:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "The value associated with a role attribute must be conformant with Literal."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Will this prevent PROV-O from using URIs to cite roles?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Restricting roles to literals will be severely limiting for PROV-O and semantic web applications, since literals cannot be described or served as linked data, and thus consumers will be unable to determine more information about what the role means.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jim McCusker
>>>>>> Programmer Analyst
>>>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>>>>>> Yale School of Medicine
>>>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
>>>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PhD Student
>>>>>> Tetherless World Constellation
>>>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>>>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
>>>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jim McCusker
>>>> Programmer Analyst
>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>>>> Yale School of Medicine
>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>>> 
>>>> PhD Student
>>>> Tetherless World Constellation
>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 22:28:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:03 UTC