Re: modeling macted's example

Hi Simon,

I like Paul's example.  

I don't think you have characterised the situation of this record on the world in your suggestion. I may want to distinguish a copy of this record I obtained from a provenance server from the one I found elsewhere.

Furthermore, I may want to characterise it in different ways: e.g. A record using core constructs only, or following some specific pattern, etc.  How do you go about this?

We should maybe try to introduce other characterisations in the example.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 27 Jan 2012, at 18:03, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello Paul,
> 
> It makes sense to me, and I could accept it. It matches what I
> understand to be the three-level view discussed.
> 
> On the other hand, it may not matter that the account can change as
> long as the provenance assertions about it stay true. So I could also
> be happy with a two-level view in which the following is valid:
>  wasGeneratedBy(acc1, emailing)
> 
> The PROV-DM spec says "an entity [is] an identifiable characterized
> thing. An entity fixes some aspects of a thing and its situation in
> the world, so that it becomes possible to express its provenance, and
> what causes these specific aspects to be as such."
> 
> We can say that acc1 is identifiable, it is characterised, it is a
> thing, and it is possible to express its provenance, so it is an
> entity. It is only distinct in that it is not a specialisation of some
> other entity, and is characterised merely by being that account. It is
> in it's nature as an entity that we can express it's provenance using
> PROV-DM.
> 
> Both two and three-level views seem OK to me, but the two-level view
> might be less confusing to explain. Following MacTed's terms in the
> telecon, we could say: data is something you can express the
> provenance of, provenance is metadata, but metadata is also itself
> data.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> On 27 January 2012 17:28, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I thought I would take a go at modeling part of MacTed's provenance of
>> provenance example.
>> 
>> Here's the description "i have a table, built in 1727 by joe smith ..."
>> I would model this in prov dm as:
>> 
>> entity(table)
>> wasGeneratedBy(table, built, 1727)
>> activity(built)
>> wasAssociatedWith(built,joe smith)
>> 
>> Now to talk about the provenance of that provenance (generated by an
>> email activity), I think I would do the following:
>> 
>> acccount(acc1,
>>     entity(table)
>>     wasGeneratedBy(table, built, 1727)
>>     activity(built)
>>     wasAssociatedWith(built,joe smith)
>> )
>> 
>> entity(acc_entity_id, [perspectiveOn=acc1])
>> wasGeneratedBy(acc_entity_id, emailing)
>> 
>> To me we can't just say
>> 
>> wasGeneratedBy(acc1, emailing) because the account may change and also
>> different people may take different perspectives on the account. So we
>> need to do a "freezing" operation thus making it into an entity. Then we
>> can talk about it's provenance.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> Paul
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/
>

Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 18:33:06 UTC