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

Re: Changes to prov:Dictionary

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:03:43 -0400
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C9F9086D-0687-4A25-821B-311EC686AD2E@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> Stian,
> 
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 
>> Without EmptyCollection or CompleteMembership the
>> collections/dictionaries are of almost no worth to my use cases,
> 
> EmptyCollection remains in the latest PROV-O (so that is not an issue).
> 
> It was CompleteMembership that got the ax (this is the topic at hand).
> 
> Regarding your use cases, I think it's important to cite Graham's points about uses cases for standards:
> http://www.w3.org/mid/4FCEFCB0.4090100@zoo.ox.ac.uk

+1 to the relevance of Graham's point about scope creep and system use cases vs. coverage/scope of a standard.

> 
> 
> 
>> 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.

Are you specifically worried about the possibility that other members may be asserted at a later time by someone else?  If this is an issue than perhaps you could use a system-specific extension of prov:Collection which utilizes a terminated ordered list.

I must reiterate my agreement with Graham's point above that this need from this use case should not become a requirement for all collections defined in the standard.

>> 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.
> 
> Would this use case be handled if Taverna instead leveraged the "additional attributes" that DM already provides?
> 
> memberOf(id; c, {(key_1, e_1), ..., (key_n, e_n)}, cplt, attrs)
> 
> perhaps a property taverna:isComplete or class taverna:CompleteDictionary ?

Even if this attribute was added to the prov or an extension of prov, it does not enforce the closed-world membership that Stian would like to have.

No attribute or class specialization will resolve the issue of trying to enforce CWA in RDF.

> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> If this can't be handled soundly and properly in PROV-O and OWA, then I don't think we should try (or, fake it).

+1

I think in general the idea of 'completeness' is incompatible with OWA and should not be addressed in PROV-O.

--Stephan

> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> That seems to be the predominant perspective, as people have indicated in various email threads and tracker issues.
> With the use of a custom attribute and type ( taverna:isComplete or class taverna:CompleteDictionary ), can you accept removing the special optional parameter on DM's memberOf?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> However, I still don't undertstand what is the problem with saying
>> something is an empty collection.
> 
> Not an issue. EmptyDictionary is still in there :-)
> 
> Thanks!
> Tim
> 
>> 
>> 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 16:05:26 UTC

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