- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:09:56 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 14/06/2012 07:44, Luc Moreau wrote: > The latest version of prov-dm contains a simplified > version of contextualizationOf worked out with Tim and Simon. Are we referring to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-contextualization ? (retrieved 2014-06-14T11:06 (UK time)). Does this replace "hasProvenanceIn"? If so, I vote -1, for reasons I've already stated. I don't think this fixes any problem. I think the whole issue of contextualization, as described, is fraught with potential problems. At the very least, I'd need to see how this plays out in RDF before I could drop my opposition to this - I still think there's a possibility here of violating RDF semantics if the URIs are used unmodified. I apologize that I shall have limited availility to discuss this further this week, but I feel compelled to oppose this as I think it *could* be a serious mistake. #g -- On 14/06/2012 07:44, Luc Moreau wrote: > 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 10:10:57 UTC