W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Changes to prov:Dictionary

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:39:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm52YzmjmpO4=Cx+q0um+UMpNdwMdjS68XjMhBmDi1pYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Without EmptyCollection or CompleteMembership the
collections/dictionaries are of almost no worth to my use cases, as
all I can say then is that "some of the members are X, Y and Z" - but
there might also be A, B and C. In Taverna workflows, all collections
are closed (unless you export provenance before a workflow has
finished). It is important to know that ALL these genes - and no other
genes - came back. Just saying "some of these came back" is of less
value.


I understand that in RDF if we don't use rdf:List, then statements of
such completeness are still fairly vague as the lists are not
terminated and additional tuples could be adding
members/insertions/removals.

However when I make a provenance export of a workflow run, I would
want to also say something like "These are all the workflow processes
that ran, and these are all the entities that were created". But
perhaps a more general completeness-claim for an account/bundle is out
of scope for PROV.


However, I still don't undertstand what is the problem with saying
something is an empty collection.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> It's specifically your last point. Being to express whether membership was complete
> was a request from Stian and Paolo I believe.
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 06/06/2012 02:31 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
> Luc,
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5 Jun 2012, at 23:18, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> prov-wg (and prov-dm editors),
>
> I've reviewed all of the materials (that I can find) regarding collective concerns about prov:Dictionary, and
> have committed changes to the latest PROV-O owl and html to address those concerns:
>
> * https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html
> * http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>
> The changes are summarized here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership&oldid=7905#PROV-O_changes_made.2C_inspired_by_this_example
>
> and repeated here:
>
>  Added class prov:Collection, as subclass of Entity
> Added property prov:hadMember domain prov:Collection range prov:Entity.
>
> This supports both generic "simple set" prov:Collection and prov:Dictionary.
>
> Made KeyValuePair a subclass of Entity
>
> this follows from Set Collection :c prov:hadMember :my_member and the definition of Collection "A collection is an entity that has some members. The members are themselves entities").
>
> Renamed prov:membership to prov:qualifiedMembership to follow qualification pattern naming.
> prov:Membership became subclass of prov:EntityInvolvement (though, it could become subclass of prov:KeyValuePairInvolvement, itself a subclass of prov:EntityInvolvement. But we'll try to simplify and reuse prov:entity)
> prov:member renamed to prov:pair and became a subproperty of prov:involvee
> Added property chain (qualifiedMembership o prov:pair) rdfs:subClassOf prov:hadMember
> Added prov:removed domain prov:Removal range prov:KeyValuePair
> Removed prov:CompleteDictionary from DM and PROV-O.
>
> Why?
> Luc
>
>
>
> What in particular would you like to discuss.
> As I said, this reflects a response to many concerns that have been raised by many people in many forms.
> In an effort to maintain focus and to make progress, I recommend that these points, the latest prov-dm, and the latest prov-o update serve as the basis for these discussions.
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You'll notice the prov-o modeling of Dictionaries is not consistent with latest prov-dm.
>
> The prov-o team would like to ask the prov-dm editors to reconsider how collections and dictionaries are defined, so that they reflect the latest prov-o modeling of the PROV concepts.
>
> Regards,
> Tim Lebo
>
>
>
>
>
> cc tracker ISSUE-374 ISSUE-391
>
>
>
> --
> 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




--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 14:40:01 UTC

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