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 15:14:06 -0400
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94FEF4F3-7E99-4B84-A774-CA252154AD6C@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim
> 
> You do have inContext from Entity to Context, don't you?

Yes. But that one isn't getting confused with specializationOf, which was my concern.

> 
> I would encode the rdf below in prov-dm as follows:
> 
> contextualizationOf(anonymous, ex:Bob, ex:run2)
> alternateOf(tool:Bob2,  anonymous )
> Does it make sense?
> Luc

You mean run1 and Bob1, instead of run2, Bob2, no?

Given your mapping back, I think I'm still okay.

In my mapping, I'd just _name_ my ContextualizedEntity and use alternateOf instead of specializationOf.

But why wouldn't it be specializationOf? Then, we get to "inherit" the characterization, which seemed to be your intent from the beginning.

Any way it falls from here, I think this is close enough for me to be content.

-Tim

[snip]
>> 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
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 19:14:43 UTC

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