- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:12:18 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|bb0f91ec15087de02264a855b2b750a4o55BCL08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FCF2D02>
Hi Tim,
The last point now is that in the original proposal, we
had some optional attributes prov:service-uri and prov:provenance-uri.
So, two questions:
1. Do we define these as part of the prov-dm/prov-o?
2. Can they be defined as optional attributes of bundles?
Cheers,
Luc
On 06/06/2012 11:10 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> See below.
>
> On 06/05/2012 11:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> Overall, looks pretty good.
>>
>>
>
> Great, it looks like we are converging.
>>
>>
>> "sharing the facets"
>> ->
>> perhaps use "presenting aspects" as with the accepted phrasing from
>> the last round of alt/spec definitions?
>>
>
> Yes,
>>
>> BTW, you still have a missing 0 in:
>> 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00
>>
>>
> fixed
>>
>> "A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a restriction of ex:Bob"
>> -> ?
>> "A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a specialization of ex:Bob"
>>
>
> I used contextualization to avoid confusion with the specializationOf
> relation.
>>
>>
>> "defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with
>> associated rating"
>> -> (nit)
>> "defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with an
>> associated rating"
>>
>>
>> "bade" -> "bad"
>
> Fixed.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm finally comfortable with your modeling of the visualization scenario.
>>
>>
>
> Great.
> Question: in the second example, is it appropriate to write
>
> entity(tool:report1, [viz:color="orange"]) // is it
> appropriate to add viz attributes to tool:report1 or should we
> specialize it?
>
>
> or should we have two separate entities
>
>
> entity(tool:report1)
> entity(tool:specializedReport1, [viz:color="orange"])
> specializationOf(tool:specializedReport1, tool:report1)
>
>
> Luc
>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <http://foo.com/>", but it is more useful if it is
>>>> a rdfs:Resource <http://foo.com <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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
--
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
United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 10:13:38 UTC