- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:17:15 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <31CFFA5D-870E-47F6-B54B-92EF9E2816BC@rpi.edu>
Luc,
On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> The last point now is that in the original proposal, we
> had some optional attributes prov:service-uri and prov:provenance-uri.
I'm not sure how you want to use them.
Where should I see these discussed w.r.t. contextualization?
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
>
> So, two questions:
>
> 1. Do we define these as part of the prov-dm/prov-o?
PAQ's 5 were added to PROV-O yesterday: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#names-added-to-prov--namespace
Are your attributes within those 5 (specifically, hasProvenance and hasProvenanceService)?
Or are they different?
>
> 2. Can they be defined as optional attributes of bundles?
min 1 cardinality violates RL, and we have been avoiding those kinds of assertions.
I have yet to read through the PAQ in depth. Should prov:hasProvenance and hasProvenanceService have domains of Bundle? (that would mean that anything that used these properties is a bundle). That seems too constrained to me.
-Tim
>
> 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", 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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 13:17:50 UTC