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

Re: ACTION-92

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:43:30 -0700
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a3e4d4577268c4f5a8ddfa73eefa9b94o5KDhZ08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FE316F2.40701@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

It is on purpose that we didn't define context.  In the WG there is a 
precedent of not defining
terms. To name a few: thing, aspect, act upon/with,  bear 
responsibility, goals, steps, assignment, ...
So the word 'context' is to be understood with its informal meaning, 
.... like 'context' already
used in the definition of association [1].

As far as your response to Tim is concerned, of course, we
can say that if
   tool:Bob_as_in_run1 prov:contextualizationOf ex:Bob
then
   tool:Bob_as_in_run1 prov:specializationOf ex:Bob
given that contextualizationOf is defined as a subproperty of 
specializationOf.

But your solution fails to identify the bundle in which ex:Bob occurred, 
which led to the poor rating.
Regards,
Luc

[1] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#concept-activityAssociation

On 15/06/2012 16:32, Graham Klyne wrote:
> This is my attempt to respond to ACTION-92.
>
> On 14/06/2012 23:07, Luc Moreau wrote:
>   >  In your absence, we assigned ACTION-92 to you.
>   >  Can you provide an example of contextualization you think
>   >  may break rdf semantics?
>
> This is hard to do without a complete formal description of what
> contextualization actually means.
>
> I did reply [1] to Tim's comment, and the reference to the example in the wiki.
>    I would adjust my earlier comment to say something like this:  I cannot see
> how contextualization can be anything but vacuous without violating RDF
> semantics; i.e. how it actually expresses anything that cannot be expressed
> without it.
>
> I've studied the description of contextualization in DM
> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-contextualization),
> and when I dig in to it I find I can't make any sense of what it is saying.
>
> As it stands, the notion of context is undefined, so I am unable to interpret
> statements like "A bundle's descriptions provide a context in which to interpret
> an entity in a domain-specific manner".  What is this "context"?  When I look to
> the definition of "bundle", I see "A bundle is a named set of provenance
> descriptions ...".  There's nothing here about defining or providing a
> "context".  So this notion of context is being introduced without any grounding
> or basis for understanding what it means.
>
> #g
> --
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0310.html
>
>
> On 14/06/2012 23:07, Luc Moreau wrote:
>    
>> Graham,
>> In your absence, we assigned ACTION-92 to you.
>> Can you provide an example of contextualization you think
>> may break rdf semantics?
>> Thanks,
>> Luc
>>
>> PS. Tracker, this is ISSUE-385
>>
>> On 14/06/12 23:04, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>      
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Minutes of todays's teleconference can be found at
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-14
>>> Thanks to Paolo for scribing.
>>> Regards,
>>> Luc
>>>        
>>      
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:44:04 UTC

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