Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

So, Luc and PAQ'ers:

Are we covered, if PROV-O had the 5 PAQ terms?

-Tim

On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi Luc,
> 
> I would say that this attributes should not be a part of the dm. If
> they are defined, these should be part of the paq. This not mean that
> should not be possible to include as attributes on bundles.
> 
> I think the key is to identify the bundle not necessarily convey how
> to obtain it.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 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.
>> 
>> 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", 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
> Artificial Intelligence Section
> Department of Computer Science
> VU University Amsterdam
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 13:19:11 UTC