- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:07:47 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian sorry I am only picking this up now. Going through a massive backlog. I am still the first to respond, anyway. I agree that the use of passive in relation names may be confusing. Regarding your specific proposals copied below: here is a counter-proposal. if we wanted to stay consistent with the (slightly obsessive) use of passive, how about wasResultOfInsertion(c2,c1) wasResultOfRemoval(c2,c1) I am not sure I like the "by" and "at" suffixes. "key" and "value" should stay as they denote the dictionary data structures used. So how about: wasResultOfInsertion_key(c,k) wasResultOfInsertion_entity(c,v) wasResultOfRemoval_key(c,k) --Paolo > As I discussed this, we found that wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1) means c2 is like a superset of c1 - but without requiring either to be a set. So we think PROV-DM are describing something like a bag collection of (key,value) pairs, but did not bother checking wikipedia what the equivalent of superset and subset is for bags. > > Instead I just opted for "expansion" and "reduction", and use verbs that relate the actual entities: > > > :col2 a prov:Collection ; > prov:wasExpandedFrom :col1 ; > prov:wasExpandedBy :e2 ; > prov:wasExpandedAt :key2 . > > corresponding to: > > wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1) > wasAddedTo_Key(c2,k1) > wasAddedTo_Entity(c2,e1) > > > > and equivalent for reduction: > > > :col3 a prov:Collection ; > prov:wasReducedFrom :col2 ; > prov:wasReducedAt :key1 . On 10/30/11 12:05 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-135 (collection-names): Collection relations have confusing names [Data Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/135 > > Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes > On product: Data Model > > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#expression-Collection introduces relations for expressing collections; > > >> Expression: wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1) (resp. wasRemovedFrom_Coll(c2,c1)) denotes that collection c2 is an updated version of collection c1, following an insertion (resp. deletion) operation. >> Expression: wasAddedTo_Key(c,k) (resp. wasRemovedFrom_Key(c,k)) denotes that collection c had a new value with key k added to (resp. removed from) it. >> Expression: wasAddedTo_Entity(c,e) denotes that collection c had entity e added to it. > > I discussed this with some colleagues who are new to PROV, and they found the names very confusing. For instance wasAddedTo_Coll(c2, c1) sounds like c2 was added to c1. > > I understand that this _Coll/Key/Entity dispatching is to keep these as wasDerivedFrom subproperites, and avoid introducing an explicit process execution with three different usage roles. > > > > When encoding this for PROV-O I decided to rename them, but keep them as subproperties of prov:wasDerivedFrom: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/4b6e3db74001/ontology/Overview.html#collections > > > As I discussed this, we found that wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1) means c2 is like a superset of c1 - but without requiring either to be a set. So we think PROV-DM are describing something like a bag collection of (key,value) pairs, but did not bother checking wikipedia what the equivalent of superset and subset is for bags. > > Instead I just opted for "expansion" and "reduction", and use verbs that relate the actual entities: > > > :col2 a prov:Collection ; > prov:wasExpandedFrom :col1 ; > prov:wasExpandedBy :e2 ; > prov:wasExpandedAt :key2 . > > corresponding to: > > wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1) > wasAddedTo_Key(c2,k1) > wasAddedTo_Entity(c2,e1) > > > > and equivalent for reduction: > > > :col3 a prov:Collection ; > prov:wasReducedFrom :col2 ; > prov:wasReducedAt :key1 . > > > I propose to rename the PROV-DM relations for collections to match the PROV-O style above. > > > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 11:08:30 UTC