W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:05 +0100
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <55B2D362-A1CB-4A1B-83BA-3A73CFAC8A74@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Hearing no objections to using "PROV document" for now, I will close the issue.

--James

On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:20 , Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
>> James,
>> 
>> Mainly, I wanted to say that it will be very helpful if a PROV Dataset is structurally and semantically aligned with a SPARQL/RDF 1.1 Dataset.  (SPARQL defines no dataset semantics, but I understand the RDF 1.1 group have adopted the structure for "named graphs" in RDF, so will hopefully also define appropriate RDF semantics.)
> 
> Graham: that is the point (alas!): the RDF group have not yet really adopted anything:-( And the 'appropriate RDF Semantics' is one of the stumbling blocks, in fact.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> 
>> From this email, I find the distinction between "instance" and "bundle" to be unclear.  Also, when you say a "bundle" is not a "statement", what do you mean here by "statement" - I'm offline, can't check the source right now, so my apologies if this is covered in the document.  [later] I see that was a typo, but I'm still left wondering what you mean by "not a statement"
>> 
>> #g
>> --
>> 
>> On 09/08/2012 18:03, James Cheney wrote:
>>> OK.  I have done a quick pass to use the term "PROV dataset" and changed all occurrences of "toplevel bundle" to "toplevel instance".  I think it's a lot better this way!
>>> 
>>> instance = named set of statements.  (Excluding "bundle" constructs, which are not statements.)
>>> bundle = named set of statements ~= named graph of PROV-O (hopefully!)
>>> dataset = an instance and zero or more bundles (with distinct names).
>>> toplevel instance = the set of statements at the toplevel of a dataset
>>> 
>>> Module typos/snags, does this look OK?  If so I will close.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps this terminology would be useful in other documents (Luc pointed out PROV-N uses "toplevel bundle" too...).
>>> 
>>> --James
>>> 
>>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello James,
>>>> 
>>>> I strongly agree with the suggested general solution. I have no objection to "dataset" as a term. If you do still need to talk about bundles at all in PROV-Constraints, I think it should be made clear that the "toplevel" does not need to be named (does not need to be a bundle) to avoid confusion of concepts for different purposes.
>>>> 
>>>> As said on the IRC, I don't think this is a blocking issue, just a matter of text clarification.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> Dr Simon Miles
>>>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>>>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>>>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>>> 
>>>> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
>>>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: James Cheney [jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk]
>>>> Sent: 09 August 2012 17:21
>>>> To: Provenance Working Group
>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints]
>>>> 
>>>> We discussed this in the teleconference and it sounded like it would be appropriate to find better terminology for the following three things, which are currently not clearly distinguished:
>>>> 
>>>> - "the whole PROV instance, including set of toplevel statements and bundles"
>>>> - "a particular set of statements, either the toplevel one or one within a bundle"
>>>> - bundle = "a named set of provenance statements"
>>>> 
>>>> My initial proposal is "PROV dataset", "PROV instance", and "bundle".  I believe "PROV dataset" is roughly analogous to what people call "dataset" in the context of SPARQL; if anyone knows different (or has objections or better suggestions), let me know.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll send another message on this when this is ready for review.
>>>> 
>>>> --James
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474
>>>>> 
>>>>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>>>>> On product: prov-dm-constraints
>>>>> 
>>>>> As requested, I'm submitting an issue where I feel a PROV-Constraints review comment of mine is not completely answered.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My original comment:
>>>>>> Bundles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>> F. Section 6.1 seems a bit out of the blue. "The definitions
>>>>>> [etc.]... assume a PROV instance with exactly one bundle", and then
>>>>>> multiple bundles are handled as exactly the same number of
>>>>>> instances. Why? Why is there a connection between number of instances
>>>>>> and number of bundles? Why would a bundle be considered to be only one
>>>>>> instance? I thought a bundle was an identified set of statements,
>>>>>> allowing for provenance of provenance, which seems a distinct matter
>>>>>> from whether a set of statements are valid. It seems fine for a user
>>>>>> to treat one bundle as one instance if they want to, but there's no
>>>>>> reason given why this is the general case.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Response from editors:
>>>>>> I am not sure I understand this comment.  However, I have rewritten
>>>>>> slightly the intro of section 6.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "The definitions, inferences, and constraints, and the resulting notions of normalization, validity and equivalence, assume a PROV instance that consists of exactly one bundle, the toplevel bundle, containing all PROV statements in the top level of the bundle (that is, not enclosed in a named bundle). In this section, we describe how to deal with PROV instances consisting of multiple named bundles. Briefly, each bundle is handled independently; there is no interaction between bundles from the perspective of applying definitions, inferences, or constraints, computing normal forms, or checking validity or equivalence."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree this is clearer, but I don't feel it answers the key questions in my comment. To put my comment another way: you have explained checking validity where an instance consists of one bundle and of multiple bundles. The two other possibilities I see are:
>>>>> (a) A bundle containing multiple instances;
>>>>> (b) An instance that is a collection of PROV descriptions with no identifier and so is not a bundle, e.g. a provenance service query result.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we deal with each of these cases? Or, if they cannot occur, why not?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:19 UTC