- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:26:56 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|fa3b0e1ccded53eb58400323da3b5e62o1GGQx08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F3E7FD0>
Hi Tim On 02/17/2012 03:04 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > BTW, if would be helpful to include URLs to the section that is being > discussed. > This was really an ontology issue and I didn't link to the ontology file. Further comments below. > > >>> Usage >>> --- misses a property hadActivity >>> > > > prov:hadQualifiedUsage stands in place of hadActivity > > these two properties are owl:inverseOf, but we are not defining > hadActivity. > we are using hadQualifiedUsage to point from the Activity to the > Involvement to maintain Activities and Entitites and principle instances. > > I added this note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage > > >> >> I don't understand what you expect to change here. There is no >> hadActivity construct in either PROV-O or PROV-DM, so I can't just >> change the mapping to include this. > > The only requirement DM provides is that we associate the two, which > we have done. > Ultimately with the model, we support to views, relation oriented or class oriented. When you take the class oriented view, where you have a Usage class, you want to be able to talk about its activity (especially since this should be a functional property). Prov-dm states that a usage has a constituent activity. Why can't a property be defined as owl:inverseOf, as you suggested, in the ontology? >> >> There is a link from the activity to the usage labeled >> hadQualifiedUsage. The hadActivity link would be the inverse of that. > > +1 > >> However, the edges here are meant to be consistent with the direction >> "towards the past". > > In this case, it is to maintain the Activity as the "more principal" > instance, which is done by making it the subject of the triple. > I've jotted down some > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Mapping_goals > >> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with >> hadActivity going in the reverse direction. >> >> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a >> hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities. > > If proposed, I say -1 > I don't think the notion of 'principal' should be absolute. It depends on what you are doing with the provenance, and this is left to users. >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Bundle: not part of DM3? >> >> I don't understand what would address this issue. There is a Bundle >> section that contains some discussion of Account and RecordContainer. >> Since Account was put on the endangered species list at F2F2, my >> impression was that they were not required to be handled in the first >> draft of the mapping. > > Despite the "endangered species list", I put in a mapping for accounts > with the expectation that "Account" would be renamed to "Bundle" (and > with the hope that it would just be called "Provenance" because that > is what it is...) > > @James, I need to add a fourth column of > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account but am fighting latex. > Could you add the fourth column? > > "nil" in a new far left column, except for where "name" appears on the > left. > > > BTW, I added a prov:specializationOf triple and axiom to the mapping > for accounts. sd:graph > > >> >> Please be more specific about what aspects of bundles you think >> aren't handled here and should be. >> >> Proposal: Defer until status of bundles/accounts/record containers is >> stable. >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> There is no time information associated with Entity in DM3 >>> >> >> Correct, but I don't see what you think should change (in the >> mapping, PROV-O, or PROV-DM). The rule for entity() records does not >> link the entity to a time. It is possible to link any Thing to a >> time, including an Entity, but so what? >> >> Proposal: No change. > > > Agreed. What tidbit of what document leads to this question? > > The ontology allows for time to be associated with entities. >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Association: >>> hadQualifiedAssociation property missing > > missing from where? > > it's at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association > > I see it in "now" in [ ] a prov:Entity; prov:specializationOf > <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl> > > :hadQualifiedAssociation > a owl:ObjectProperty ; > rdfs:domain :Activity ; > rdfs:range :Association . > > It looks it was added, it's good. > >> >> I interpret this as an issue with Prov-O, which (if addressed by >> adding such a property) should be reflected in the mapping. >> >> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in >> mapping. >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Association: >>> hadQualifiedEntity has range Entity, >>> but it should be Agent .... >>> hadQualifiedAgent with range Agent, > > > I added this extra triple and the corresponding axiom at > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association > Is it added to the ontology? The mapping no longer needs to show hadQUalifiedEntity > >>> >> >> This is a PROV-O issue, which if addressed there can be easily >> reflected in the mapping. >> >> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in >> mapping. >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Association >>> --- misses a functional property hadActivity >>> >> >> Same response as for Usage. > > +1 > > I added a note at > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association > > Same comment as above. I am OK with your suggestion to have these in separate files if appropriate. >> >> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a >> hadActivity property, and reflect any ensuing change in mapping. >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Association >>> ---- adoptedPlan i would have thought it had to be functional >> >> This is a PROV-O issue. >> >> proposal: Raise against PROV-O. No change is needed to the mapping. >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Delegation: what is it? >>> is it what is called Responsibility Record in WD3? >>> >> >> I'm not sure (didn't write this part), but I believe it is a class >> that is populated by the identifiers of responsibility records (as >> Usage for used, Generation for wasGeneratedBy). This seems obvious >> from the way it is used in the rule, but deserves explanation. > > > I'd love to rename Delegation to Responsibility. Please let us do it. > Added a note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Responsibility > > > >> >> Proposal: Add a sentence to ProvRDF explaining this. >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No collection >>> >> >> True, and the reason is the same as for Bundle - constructs that were >> in-flux or endangered as of F2F2 were not expected to be mapped. >> >> Proposal: Defer until collections stabilize. > > > Proposal: ACTION on Stian to add ProvRDF rules. > >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> HadTemporalValue >>> --- is not functional >> >> True, but this is a PROV-O issue. >> >> Proposal: Re-raise against Prov-O. No change needed to mapping. >> >>> --- has QualifiedInvolvement in its domain but > > > I see that it has a domain of owl:Thing. > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl > > 168 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l168> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="hadTemporalValue"> > > 169 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l169> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/> > > 170 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l170> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en" > > 171 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l171> >has temporal value</rdfs:label> > > 172 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l172> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&owl;Thing"/> > > 173 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l173> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="Time"/> > > 174 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l174> </owl:ObjectProperty> > > > Which is too broad. > -Tim > Luc >>> Association and Delegation don't have temporal information >>> >> >> This is an example where the mapping may suggest changes to PROV-DM. >> >> It's true that in Prov-DM, these two events don't have temporal >> information. Thus, in PROV-O, we could represent such information >> that cannot be expressed in PROV-DM. But so what? I don't think we >> agreed to the constraint that everything one can express in PROV-O >> can also be expressed in PROV-DM; the goal of the mapping was just to >> show how to express (almost) everything in PROV-DM in RDF. >> >> If you think PROV-O should not be able to express times for >> association and delegation because PROV-DM cannot, please raise >> against PROV-O. >> >> If you think there is a round-tripping property the mapping should >> have that it doesn't have, please formulate and raise it as a >> separate issue against the mapping. (This could ultimately imply >> changes to several things, so the mapping is an appropriate place to >> raise it.) >> >> Proposal: Raise question whether Association and Delegation should >> have time information against PROV-DM; no change needed to mapping. >> >> --James >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 16:27:44 UTC