Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

On Jul 9, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> We cannot really afford to wait till Thursday to make progress on this.
> We need to try and resolve it by email.
> 
> For #2.
> The reason for qualifiedXXX is inverse functional is that
> when we write an expression such as
> usage(id;a,e,t,[attr1=v1,attr2=v2])
> there is a single activity and a single entity per usage.
> So, qualifiedUsage is inverse functional and influencer is functional.
> Likewise hadActivity/hadPlan/hadXXX are functional.

I agree with Luc's reasoning, assuming the identifier of the usage is unique, the syntax of prov-n implicitly makes the activity/entity/time attributes in the above example functional.

If the id is not required to be unique than I don't think the implicit functionality holds.

If this is valid prov-n, then I don't think we can infer functionality of the activity, entity, and time PROV-DM attributes.

used("001", a1, e1, 2011-11-11T16:00:00Z)
used("001", a2, e2, 2011-11-11T16:00:01Z)

So, assuming the identifier is unique and that functionality of some attributes can be reasonably implied from the dm, how should we proceed?

We could make explicit the PROV-DM attributes we want to be treated as functional.  This will clarify our intentions on this matter, clarify that the prov-n example above is invalid, and make the decision on properties to make functional in PROV-O straight forward.  

The PROV-O property qualifiedUsage would be justified as inverse functional by making the PROV-DM activity attribute of used( ) explicitly functional.

--Stephan

> 
> I pointed out that this was PROV-O specific, because the qualified pattern
> is introduced by prov-o, not prov-dm.
> 
> 
> For #5, I was just following your editorial note "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."
> 
> If qualifiedGeneration is not functional, I suppose that generatedAtTime cannot be functional.
> But maybe, I am wrong.
> 
> Luc
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 6:06 PM
> To: Luc Moreau
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last  call [PROV-O HTML]
> 
> Luc,
> 
> The prov-o team discussed this during our telcon today.
> 
> Are the property characteristics that you suggest justified by DM?
> 
> You do point out that some are "PROV-O specific", but they should still have grounding in DM, right?
> 
> The team thinks that these characteristics should be discussed at the WG level.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
> …
> 
>> 
>> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional?
>> Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a qualified Influence
>> for multiple subjects. This is not intended.
>> 
>> The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional before, but I think
>>  this characteristic was incorrectly removed.
>> 
>> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per
>> qualified pattern instance, isn't there.
>> 
>> 4. Likewise:
>> hadPlan: is functional
>> hadUsage: is functional
>> hadGeneration: is functional
>> hadActivity: is functional
>> 
>>  As per prov-dm.
>> 
>> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en
>> 
>> --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional.
>> 
>> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, endedAtTime,
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>> 
>>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release.
>>> 
>>> The document is at:
>>> 
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html
>>> 
>>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to the following questions:
>>> 
>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 22:06:46 UTC