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

Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:25:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4FEB421E.3080703@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 27/06/2012 17:27, James Cheney wrote:
> OK.  I don't see how simply renaming to specializationOf (and changing the definition to make it vaguer) resolves the end-of-the-web concern.  I thought the way to resolve that was to work out what the implications were w.r.t RDF semantics and context issues, by some combination of expanding the semantics and discussing with the RDF wg.  Since we're not doing that, I guess the optional bundle argument should stay "at risk".

+1

I don't see this as a problem of naming, but one of semantics.

#g
--

> As for name, if al we want to do is link "this entity" to "that entity in that bundle", in some vague specialization-like way, why not:
>
> linkedTo(e2,e1,b)
>
> with inference
>
> linkedTo(e2,e1,b) ->  specializationOf(e2,e1)
>
> (This is a strawman, but I'm sure we can do better)
>
> I really don't like the idea of overloading specialization (whose meaning we spent a long time fine-tuning) with a third optional argument whose semantics is still uncertain.
>
> I'd be happy to proceed with this at risk, keep bundles and "3-ary specialization" out of the formal semantics/constraints, and see what the rest of the world thinks; I guess we need to hear from Graham though since it was his concern that is motivating the changes.
>
> --James
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 17:42:11 UTC

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