W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Fwd: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:42:27 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e5a28fd4356c1dd89052d0a4e18ecd72o519gV08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|42E8B4C1-A805-4D9A-822B-32B782A6F338@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

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 07:22:57 GMT+01:00
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-prov-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

I've reviewed this example again. You claim ... "would lead us to believe that good rating is due to slow performance.".

If all occurrences of ex:Bob denote the same thing, I don't see how you can conclude this. Only that ex:Bob had a good rating, a poor rating, a fast performance and a slow performance.

there's insufficient information to say which rating was associated with which performance.


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:


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

     bundle ex:run2
      activity(ex:a2, 2011-11-17T10:00:00,2011-11-17T17:0:00)
//duration: 7hours

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


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)
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?

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 08:43:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:15 UTC