Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

Hi Tim,
I am getting confused, your mail had both run1 and run2.

Your rdf examples involve 3 entities, one of which a blank node.
The ones you relate with specializationOf/alternateOf, so do I.

The ones you relate with prov:identifier, I use contextualizationOf instead.

Maybe the mapping would be clearer if we could just look at the latter two entities.


Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 6 Jun 2012, at 20:14, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

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