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 09:51:52 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99FC57A9-D781-491F-B890-570999755C33@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Jun 6, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> If they go in prov-o, then we also want them in prov-dm, prov-xml, etc

Paul asked for them to be in PROV-O, so they are there now.

Paul, can you provide some guidance on these new impacts on DM and O?

DM has a different case-and-dash name than PAQ. Should these match?

-Tim

> Luc
> 
> On 06/06/2012 02:18 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 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 13:52:27 UTC

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