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

Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:44:58 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|3245dadd5e8c1ae5d7ea0e342135bd12o5D7jN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FD9886A.2010108@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,

The latest version of prov-dm contains a simplified
version of contextualizationOf worked out with Tim and Simon.

The solution is very much in line with ISSUE-260 raised by Tim,
since contextualizationOf is a special case of specialization.


I am proposing to close this issue pending review by the working group.

Cheers,
Luc


On 31/05/12 22:54, Luc Moreau wrote:
> All,
>
> To try and converge towards a solution, I am
> circulating an example using a ternary hasProvenanceIn.
> I would like to understand if and how we can make it work with
> a simpler relation.
>
>
> Two bundles ex:run1 and ex:run2 describe bob's role as a controller
> of two activities.  Same bob, two different bundles.
>
>     bundle ex:run1
>      activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00)  
> //duration: 1hour
>      wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>     endBundle
>
>     bundle ex:run2
>      activity(ex:a2, 2011-11-17T10:00:00,2011-11-17T17:0:00)  
> //duration: 7hours
>      wasAssociatedWith(ex:a2,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"])
>     endBundle
>
>
> A performance analysis tool rates the performance of agents (this 
> could be used
> to dispatch further work to performant agents, or congratulate them, 
> etc).
>
>
>     bundle tool:analysis01
>
>       agent(tool:Bob1, [perf:rating="good"])
>       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)  // Bob performance 
> in ex:run1 is good
>
>       agent(tool:Bob2, [perf:rating="bad"])
>       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob)  // Bob performance 
> in ex:run2 is bad
>
>     endBundle
>
> The performance analysis tool has to rate two involvements of ex:Bob 
> in two separate activities.
> Two specialized version of ex:Bob are defined: tool:bob1 and 
> tool:bob2, with rating good and
> bad respectively.
>
> tool:Bob1 is linked to ex:Bob in run1, and tool:Bob2 is linked to 
> ex:Bob in run2, with the following
>
>       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1, ex:Bob)
>       hasProvenanceIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2, ex:Bob)
>
> Nothing is expressed about ex:Bob in bundle tool:analysis01 (except 
> that this is an alias
> for tool:Bob1 and tool:Bob2).
>
> It is suggested that the ternary relation could be replaced by
> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
> and
> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>
> I don't understand the point of
>   isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
> since tool:Bob1 is not a topic in ex:run1.
>
> Also, we now seem to have made ex:Bob a topic of tool:analysis01, because
> the following expression.
> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob).
>
> From tool:analysis01, where do I find provenance about ex:Bob?
> It look like this has become a dead end in this graph.
>
> Do I need to introduce:
>   isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>   isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)?
>
>
> So now we would  have:
> isTopicIn(tool:Bob1, ex:run1)
> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
> isTopicIn(tool:Bob2, ex:run2)
> specialization(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob)
> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run1)
> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>
> Which means that:
>
> specialization(tool:Bob1, ex:Bob)
> isTopicIn(ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>
> ... would lead us to believe that good rating is due to slow performance.
>
> Can the proposer of the separate binary relations explain how this 
> example can work?
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 06:45:54 UTC

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