Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

Hi Tim,

I tried to write this up as a separate relation contextualizationOf, see 
section 1.3 in [1].
I believe this relation is compatible with your rdf encoding. The only 
difference, here,
is that we make this an identifiable thing.

        [
            a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
            prov:identifier       ex:Bob;
            prov:inContext     ex:run2;
        ];

What do you think?
Luc

[1] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html

On 04/06/2012 23:25, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
> (bottom)
>
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Some comments/questions below.
>>
>> On 04/06/2012 13:46, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>        ];
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for this, Tim.
>>
>> First some questions:
>> - why a bnode here?
>
> bnodes are read "the thing that" and _can_ serve as an existential.
>
>> - Can you explain the  dcterms:identifier comment?
>
> 1) The value is the identifier used in the other bundle.
> 2) The rdfs:range of dcterms:identifier is a literal "http://foo.com", 
> but it is more useful if it is a rdfs:Resource <http://foo.com>. With 
> the former, we know that we can "try to go there" to dereference the URI.
>
>>
>> Now, assuming that this rdf encoding expresses what was originally 
>> suggested, some further questions:
>> - have we got indeed a ternary alternateOf relation in prov-dm as I 
>> suggested?
>
> Perhaps. The original binary that we now know and love, and a second 
> ternary that "wraps" a URI and a Bundle (that mentions the URI).
> The only new things would be:
>
> 1) The two new predicates prov:identifier and prov:inContext (perhaps 
> that should just be called prov:inBundle -- I was swayed too far 
> towards DCTerms when I chose that this morning).
> 2) The new rule to unwrap your ternary DM into this RDF structure.
>
>
>> - or have we got some form of ternary relation 
>> isContextualizationOf(e2,e1,bundle)?
>
> Or, just a binary isContextualized(e1,bundle)?
>
> And we just stack on an existing alternateOf(e2,e1)...
>
>
> BTW, not really sure where we're going with this.
> It feels like we're close to wrapping this up, but worried that we're 
> in some odd local minima.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Luc
>>
>