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

Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:46:11 -0400
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C1DB9DC6-0C88-4514-BF6F-741665105B58@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:16 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> During this diamond jubilee WE, I had the opportunity to think about Tim and Simon's long emails.
> 
> I agree with them that we have concepts of alternate and specialisation, and we want to reuse them.
> 
> I also came to the conclusion that behind the hasProvenanceIn relation, what I really wanted was a form of alternate. But not what Tim or Simon are suggesting.
> 
> The PROV data model has a shortcoming: the inability to identify something in some context. That's what I am trying to address here.
> 


> 


> The interpretation of 
>        alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
> is that tool:Bob2 is the entity that share aspects of ex:bob as described by ex:run2. Conceptually, this could be done by substituting ex:Bob for tool:Bob2 in ex:run2.
> 
> I appreciate that what I am describing here is not too distant from http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215/#record-complement-of, which had optional account, and was not received with enthusiasm, to say the least.
> 
> Coincidentally, Paul shared this paper 
> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-614/owled2010_submission_29.pdf which introduces  rules of the kind
> X counts as Y in context C
> which bears some resemblance with what I am trying to argue for.
> 
> So, my proposal is;
> - drop hasProvenanceIn
> - drop isTopicIn
> - allow for the ternary form of alternate
> 
> Tim and Simon approach by using two binary relations do not offer the same level of expressivity.  
> The also have a technological bias, as well: they require querying/reasoning facility.  Therefore,
> their suggestion is not suitable for a data model supposed to be technology neutral.


A stab at:

bundle tool:analysis01
     alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
endBundle

in PROV-O:

tool:analysis01 {
    tool:Bob2 
       prov:alternateOf [  ## The use here of bnode is, for once, actually appropriate :-)
           a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
           prov:identifier       ex:Bob;   ## The identifier that is used "over there"   Can't use dcterms:identifier b/c that is a rdfs:Literal.
           prov:inContext     ex:run2;   ## "over there"       Could prov:atLocation be reused?
       ];
}


-Tim







> 
> Luc
> 
> 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 
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 12:46:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC