Fwd: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

>From Graham

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Graham Klyne <gklyne@googlemail.com<mailto:gklyne@googlemail.com>>
Date: 2 June 2012 07:06:48 GMT+01:00
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

I don't have computer to hand... Can't check your example ... But i think you claimed one would conclude that how's performance rating was good because it was slower, or something like that. I could only make sense of that if you allowed references to "bob" in the two bundles to denote different things.

#g.

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Hi Graham,

it's not the case.
ex:Bob denotes the same resource in both bundles.

tool:Bob1 and tool:Bob2 are two different specialized versions.

Luc


On 06/01/2012 09:39 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> You're using it to denote different things in different bundles.  This
> is not consistent with the semantics of URIs used in RDF.
>
> #g
> --
>
> On 31/05/2012 23:38, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>
>> I don't think so.
>> What is illegal is my use of URI?
>>
>> ex:Bob means the same agent in both bundles, but it performs different
>> activities on different days,
>> with different performance.
>>
>> The analysis tool may be in control of the provenance it generates
>> (in
bundle
>> tool:analysis01) but
>> not of ex:run1 and ex:run2. Thus there is no opportunity for the tool
>> to rename the
>> two instances of ex:bob in run1 and run2.
>>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 31/05/12 23:27, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> The problem here that I see is that you trying to make ex:Bob mean
>>> different
>>> things in the two bundles. It's the old demon of name-scoping
>>> creeping back
>>> in. If we are using URIs for names, then we can't do this, as URIs
>>> are defined
>>> as a global namespace (or they are as far as RDF is concerned, and
>>> this model
>>> is supposed to map to different technologies).
>>>
>>> If your example is re-cast with different names for ex:Bob in the
>>> two bundles,
>>> the problem goes away - the undesired inference doesn't occur. But
>>> under that
>>> circumstances, I can't see why you need the aliasing at all.
>>>
>>> #g
>>> --
>>>
>>> On 31/05/2012 22:54, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> To try and converge towards a solution, I am
>>>> circulating an example using a ternary hasProvenanceIn.
>>>> I would like to understand if and how we can make it work with
>>>> a simpler relation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two bundles ex:run1 and ex:run2 describe bob's role as a controller
>>>> of two activities. Same bob, two different bundles.
>>>>
>>>> bundle ex:run1
>>>> activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00)
//duration:
>>>> 1hour
>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>> bundle ex:run2
>>>> activity(ex:a2, 2011-11-17T10:00:00,2011-11-17T17:0:00) //duration:
>>>> 7hours
>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a2,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A performance analysis tool rates the performance of agents (this
>>>> could be used
>>>> to dispatch further work to performant agents, or congratulate
>>>> them, etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bundle tool:analysis01
>>>>
>>>> agent(tool:Bob1, [perf:rating="good"])
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob) // Bob performance in
>>>> ex:run1 is
>>>> good
>>>>
>>>> agent(tool:Bob2, [perf:rating="bad"])
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob) // Bob performance in
>>>> ex:run2 is bad
>>>>
>>>> endBundle
>>>>
>>>> The performance analysis tool has to rate two involvements of
>>>> ex:Bob in two
>>>> separate activities.
>>>> Two specialized version of ex:Bob are defined: tool:bob1 and
>>>> tool:bob2, with
>>>> rating good and
>>>> bad respectively.
>>>>
>>>> tool:Bob1 is linked to ex:Bob in run1, and tool:Bob2 is linked to
>>>> ex:Bob in
>>>> run2, with the following
>>>>
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)
>>>> hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob)
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is expressed about ex:Bob in bundle tool:analysis01 (except
>>>> that this is
>>>> an alias
>>>> for tool:Bob1 and tool:Bob2).
>>>>
>>>> It is suggested that the ternary relation could be replaced by
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> and
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the point of
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> since tool:Bob1 is not a topic in ex:run1.
>>>>
>>>> Also, we now seem to have made ex:Bob a topic of tool:analysis01,
>>>> because
>>>> the following expression.
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>>>>
>>>> From tool:analysis01, where do I find provenance about ex:Bob?
>>>> It look like this has become a dead end in this graph.
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to introduce:
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now we would have:
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2)
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>>>>
>>>> Which means that:
>>>>
>>>> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
>>>> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>>>>
>>>> ... would lead
us to believe that good rating is due to slow
>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>> Can the proposer of the separate binary relations explain how this
>>>> example can
>>>> work?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>

--
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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm