Re: prov-wg: Another name for Qualified?

As an RDFer, the following doesn't look too bad. 
Ontology-ers will hate it (which is ironic, since they should only be worried about the axioms and not the tokens).

:activity
    a prov:Activity;

    prov:used           :in;
    prov:usage [ 
       a prov:Usage;
       prov:?? :in;           # <--- Suggestions for this predicate very much welcome!
    ];

    prov:generated :out;
    prov:generation [ 
       a prov:Generation;
       prov:?? :out;
    ];
.

Short. And parallels even more nicely. I'm sold, Luc!


-Tim



On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> 
> s/Qualified// on properties too
> 
> 
> hadQualifiedXXX -> hadXXX
> 
> 
> And if you said s/had// 
> Then 
> 
> hadQualifiedXXX -> XXX
> 
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 17 Feb 2012, at 21:51, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Luc
>> 
>> I think we agree that Qualified shouldn't be in front of the class names. In the ontology they aren't.
>> 
>> The question is what the predicate should be between the activity and the Involvement subclass?
>> 
>> I'm open to suggestions.
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 22:35, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Tim, Paul
>>> Still in the spirit of simplification
>>> 
>>> used vs Usage
>>> wasGeneratedBy vs Generation
>>> 
>>> Why do we need Qualified? If you say QualifiedGeneration, ... 
>>> I always expect a UnqualifiedGeneration ..  But there is no such class.
>>> 
>>> s/Qualified//
>>> 
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>> University of Southampton 
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>> United Kingdom
>>> 
>>> On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Tim, Jim,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like the suggestion a lot. [English teacher verification is good :-) ] Indeed, I was thinking that all the "had" in the ontology were a bit verbose. A blank node may indeed be the best way solve it for having long types.
>>>> 
>>>> Blank nodes should not be any way to solve URI length (or any other problem; they should be avoided at all costs).
>>>> Any occurrence of bnodes in my examples could  just as easily be URIs. I'm just using them for abbreviation to show the structure.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure how you interpreted my example as using bnodes to solve a length problem. Could you explain?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A couple of questions in your examples:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - You have the prov:generated relationship but I don't see that in the ontology file although I do see it in the ProvRDF page? This is issue #98, which has no resolution http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/98
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with the issue and think that it should be added to the ontology as an owl:inverse of prov:wasGeneratedBy.
>>>> (oh, I created the issue. Glad that I still agree with it!)
>>>> Though, I'm expecting push back on an inverse being added to the ontology.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> - You use the relation prov:entity and not prov:hadQualifiedEntity.
>>>> 
>>>> prov:entity was the initial stand in. And I'm bringing it up again because it's a "whole lot shorter".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> This also isn't in the ontology or this a suggestion?
>>>> 
>>>> resurrected suggestion.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> I'm trying to think of other shorter names that convey the same meaning as qualified involvement.
>>>> 
>>>> For the class or predicates? For the class, go "Involvement". Short.
>>>> For the predicate, "qualifiedGeneration / Use" is worth the length in my opinion, because it parallels prov:generated / prov:used in a natural way.
>>>> 
>>>> -Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Just for less typing but clearly I don't want to open a huge debate there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If anyone, comes up with suggestions that would be great. I'll try to think of some myself. But again this may be too picky
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the quick response,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim McCusker wrote:
>>>>>> To be clear, we're using "qualified" as a verb, not a noun, which is why
>>>>>> we can drop "had".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2012 8:50 AM, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>> Although it doesn't shorten it up much, I think it is _much_ clearer
>>>>>> if we drop "had".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> prov:hadQualifiedGeneration -> prov:qualifiedGeneration
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This changes the statement from a passive to active, which will make
>>>>>> all of my writing teachers happy.
>>>>>> The Activity qualified its Generation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This also parallels the unqualified form nicely ("generated" and
>>>>>> "qualifiedGeneration") -- a fork in the road with two routes that a
>>>>>> client can follow, depending on how much detail they want.:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> :my_activity
>>>>>> a prov:Activity;
>>>>>> prov:generated :my_entity;
>>>>>> prov:qualifiedGeneration [
>>>>>> a prov:Generation;
>>>>>> prov:entity :my_entity;
>>>>>> :foo :bar;
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>> QualifiedInvolvement -> Involvement still makes _complete_ sense,
>>>>>> since it is inherently qualifying the binary relation. Being an
>>>>>> Involvement _means_ that you're being pointed at with some
>>>>>> subproperty of prov:qualifiedInvolvement (e.g. qualifiedGeneration)
>>>>>> AND you're pointing to the (rdf:object) involvee with, say, prov:entity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As for the predicates hanging off of the Involvement, we started
>>>>>> with just:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> :my_activity prov:qualifiedGeneration [
>>>>>> a prov:Generation;
>>>>>> prov:entity :my_entity;
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> but we run into a slight hiccup when we're qualifying the
>>>>>> Involvement between two Entities b/c we don't know which is the
>>>>>> rdf:subject and which is the rdf:object of the binary relation we're
>>>>>> qualifying. However, these situations start to leave core, and a
>>>>>> qualified involvement between two entities should be some Activity,
>>>>>> so we can avoid the degenerate Entity-Entity case.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The idea behind QualifiedInvolvement is great and it's been
>>>>>> resolved for a while so I don't want to open it up.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> but.... could we get a better name?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The name is long, especially for the properties. So you have to
>>>>>> write:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ex:activity1 prov:hadQualifiedGeneration ex:g1.
>>>>>>> ex:g1 prov:hadQualifiedEntity ex:e1.
>>>>>>> ex:g1 prov:wasGeneratedAt [owlTime:inXSDDateTime
>>>>>> 2006-01-01T10:30:00-5:00].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> could we shorten them up somehow? Any suggestions?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>