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

Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|878661a4ddf705da302983a497bc92c1o5QGnr08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FEB2BA1.7040207@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

There was also a request by Khalid and Daniel in their review to 
simplify the definition.
That's what we have done.

As far as the name is concerned, I am not opposed to another name, but 
we have failed
to find one that differs from contextualization and specialization.

Further below.

On 06/27/2012 04:32 PM, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Neither of those readings below make sense to me...
>
> I thought the definition of contextualization before was:
>
> /An entity that is a contextualization ◊ of another entity presents 
> all aspects of the latter as per the latter's description in another 
> bundle (referred to as remote bundle), and therefore constitutes a 
> particular case of specialization of the latter entity./
>
> Your new text in describing the bundle argument to specializationOf 
> just says this:
> /
> /
> /bundle: an optional identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a 
> description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect 
> presented by infra./
>
> and this is saying something completely different to: now the bundle 
> is an aspect, rather than the context that includes aspects that we 
> claim e2 also has.

I believe that's exactly this point that triggered Graham's comment on 
the end of the semantic web and the browser war.
So, it was toned down.

>  It's not that clear to me what this means (and there is no longer 
> clarifying text about supra being described in the remote bundle b).
>

It is still there: /an optional identifier (b) of a bundle that contains 
a description of supra

/
> I understand we want to avoid the word "context", but this seems to be 
> both renaming and changing the meaning (to something new), which goes 
> beyond what I thought we agreed.

The point here is that we are trying to find an explanation that is 
acceptable to all parties.
There was a request to simplify the text to allow release.

Luc
>
> (I thought we had agreed to rename contextualization to something 
> else, but expected that this would be a separate relation, not 
> overloading specialization.  Should have asked.)
>
> FWIW, see also 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles which 
> attempts to formalize what I thought contextualization was about.
>
> --James
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Assuming we have a "top level" bundle (I am not sure what it would be 
>> exactly),
>> I don't think that the two expressions you are suggesting are equivalent.
>>
>> specializationOf(e1,e2,toplevelBundle)
>>
>> indicates that e1 shares all aspects of e2 and presents a further 
>> aspect: the bundle toplevelBundle.
>>
>>
>> specializationOf(e1,e2)
>>
>> indicates that e1 shares all aspects of e2 and presents and further 
>> specific aspects (but without
>> indicating which ones): a bundle MAY or MAY NOT have been fixed.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 06/27/2012 02:57 PM, James Cheney wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am happy with renaming contextualization to something less 
>>> controversial, but renaming it to specialization seems (to me) 
>>> confusing, unless it's clear that the semantics of the two variants 
>>> are compatible.
>>>
>>> Do we have a name for the "top level" bundle in PROV (i.e., the 
>>> anonymous bundle that contains the toplevel expressions), and 
>>> supposing we do, is
>>>
>>> specializationOf(e1,e2)
>>>
>>> equivalent to
>>>
>>> specializationOf(e1,e2,toplevelBundle)
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> --James
>>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> At the face to face meeting, we have agreed to rename 
>>>> contextualization and mark this feature
>>>> at risk.  Tim, Stephan, Paul and I have worked a solution that we 
>>>> now share with the working group.
>>>>
>>>> Given that contextualization was already defined as a kind of 
>>>> specialization, we now allow an optional
>>>> bundle argument in the specialization relation.  (Hence, no need to 
>>>> create a new concept!)
>>>>
>>>> See section 5.5.1 in the current Editor's draft
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-specialization
>>>>
>>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>> PS. Tracker, this is ISSUE-385
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 
>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm 
>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm 
>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>    

-- 
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 Wednesday, 27 June 2012 15:50:38 UTC

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