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: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:17:15 -0400
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <31CFFA5D-870E-47F6-B54B-92EF9E2816BC@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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

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