Re: prov-wg: Another name for Qualified?

On Feb 17, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Is too much for prov:?? to be prov:entity ...
>>>> 
>>>> That's what we started with. And I haven't seen anything else that is more compelling.
>>> 
>>> Great.  Btw, this exactly corresponds to the "names" of constituents, listed in the DM.
>> 
>> Is this a WD4 thing? Could you give a pointer to where "names" of constituents is discussed? I couldn't find "consti" in WD4 or WD3.
>> 
> 
> I meant the names appearing in italic, e.g;
> 
> Generation, written wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs) in PROV-ASN, has the following components:
> 
> id: an optional identifier identifying a generation;
> entity: an identifier identifying a created entity;
> activity: an optional identifier identifying the activity that creates the entity;
> time: an optional "generation time", the time at which the entity was completely created;
> attributes: an optional set of attribute-value pairs that describes the modalities of generation of this entity by this activity.


I see. Thanks.


> 
>>>> 
>>>> Will we ever have a set of examples that exercises the constructs in DM (and thus, PROV-O)?
>>>> I'm worried that discussing and deciding based on minted examples prevents us from seeing the whole picture.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Agreed. It's now time to build a corpus of examples. My ProvToolbox can make some conversions. Hopefully others will create other converters.
>> 
>> https://github.com/lucmoreau/ProvToolbox ?
>> What can it do? You're short on wiki pages ;-)
> 
> Sorry, it's a tool I have been using to test ideas.
>> If we start an ASN collection in prov hg, I can look at feeding them through ProvToolbox to get XML to transform to RDF with an XSL.
> 
> 
> It parses Asn, generates XML, json, and rdf (partially, sine yesterday)

Cool. What's the best way to get started with the toolbox?
How to run it, etc.




> 
>> I'd ask someone else to start the ASN collection, since I failed to get traction the first time around.
>> Apparently my organization wasn't intuitive.
>> 
> 
> I think you were ahead of us,  we are just catching Up. Maybe you could explain again your structure and how we should use it.


My explanation has been at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components#Example_instance_data
perhaps someone could review and provide feedback?



>>>> In particular, I'm concerned about situations where prov:entity references the subject of the qualified involvement, because it would break the underlying guidance from rdf:Statement.
>>>> 
>>>> Is it possible to have prov:entity refer to the subject? Revisions? qualified derivations? I've said this before, but I hope it isn't possible because some Activity should be used instead.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Isn't the class  Involvement too broad in its current form?
>>> Shouldn't the pattern be reused under a different name for
>>> Entity-entity relations and activity-activity relations?
>> 
>> 
>> I very much like this suggestion.
>> By "too broad in its current form", do you mean the 1) OWL axioms defining it, 2) its use, or 3) its naming?
>> 
>> I've had the following in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/8c14d0798b20/ontology/components/QualifiedInvolvement.ttl since Dec 02 2011
>> 
> I was not familiar with this file.  It's not part of the provOntology.owl file :-(


Victim of design by committee :-/


> 
> This starts to make more sense to me, now, thanks!
> 
> So , to check if understand, would you see prov:Inform ( I think it's the class for wasInformedBy property) to be a subclass of ActivityInvolvement?



Yup! I've added that to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/739984da9cbe/ontology/components/Involvement.ttl



> 
> 
>> prov:QualifiedEntityInvolvement
>>    a owl:Class;
>>    rdfs:label "QualifiedEntityInvolvement";
>>    rdfs:subClassOf prov:QualifiedInvolvement;
>>    rdfs:subClassOf [
>>        owl:onProperty prov:qualifiedEntity;
>>        owl:minCardinality 1;
>>    ];
>> .
>> 
>> prov:QualifiedActivityInvolvement
>>    a owl:Class;
>>    rdfs:label "QualifiedEntityInvolvement";
>>    rdfs:subClassOf prov:QualifiedInvolvement;
>>    rdfs:subClassOf [
>>        owl:onProperty prov:qualifiedActivity;
>>        owl:minCardinality 1;
>>    ];
>> .
>> 
>> 
>> ^^^ this would be "simply named" according to today's discussions with the following \/:
>> 
>> prov:EntityInvolvement
>>    a owl:Class;
>>    rdfs:label "EntityInvolvement";
>>    rdfs:subClassOf prov:Involvement;
>>    rdfs:subClassOf [
>>        owl:onProperty prov:entity;
>>        owl:minCardinality 1;
>>    ];
>> .
>> 
>> prov:Generation rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement .
>> prov:Used rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement .
>> prov:Association rdfs:subClassOf prov:EntityInvolvement; 
>>     rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty prov:entity; 
>>                       owl:allValuesFrom :Agent ] .
>> 
>> 
>> prov:ActivityInvolvement
>>    a owl:Class;
>>    rdfs:label "ActivityInvolvement";
>>    rdfs:subClassOf prov:Involvement;
>>    rdfs:subClassOf [
>>        owl:onProperty prov:activity;
>>        owl:minCardinality 1;
>>    ];
>> .
>> 
>> The _unstated_ intent is that prov:entity and prov:activity are subproperties of rdf:object .
>> 
> 
> 
> I understand now the design.
> I feel we have made good progress tonight,

Cool. Thanks.

-Tim


> Thanks
> Luc