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 12:52:02 -0400
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A024C178-D8B3-4821-B17E-7CA56EB1AE4E@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

Some more thoughts on the proposal.

I think an important aspect of our email drafts (shown below) was that no new RDF property was created between the entity and the bundle:

=====
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?
       ];
}
=====


By http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html 's :


bundle tool:analysis01
 contextualizationOf(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob, ex:run1)
endBundle


do you mean (or, may I [still] interpret as):


tool:analysis01 {
    tool:Bob1 
        prov:specializationOf [
              a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
              prov:identifier  ex:Bob;
              prov:inContext ex:run1;
        ];
    .
}


is it also true that there will never be a PROV-O statement that reflects DM that looks like:

?a  prov:contextualizationOf ?b .

(i.e., that prov:contextualizationOf does not exist).


Thanks,
Tim







On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:10 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
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 16:52:58 UTC

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