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 11:22:30 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|763d77782af43c14cb9c8fd7b8b87430o5DBMY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FD9BB66.7020704@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham,

Can you explain in what way RDF semantics might be violated?
If it was the case, then I agree, we should revisit the concept.

Luc

On 06/14/2012 11:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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
>>
>

-- 
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 Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:23:02 UTC

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