Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi Graham
> 
> These are two different urls so they identify different things. The fact that we add some properties like bundle or specializationof doesn't break anything. I can do that with any resource on the web, no?

+1

My URIs for my subjects and objects, "my" URIs for predicates between them => I'm just asserting triples that can't break the triples themselves.

-Tim

> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 19:09, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/06/2012 10:49, 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.
>> 
>> I'm afraid I still have a problem with this.
>> 
>> Considering your bundle tool:analysis01:
>> [[
>> bundle tool:analysis01
>>    agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, [perf:rating="good"])
>>    specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, ex:Bob, ex:run1)
>> 
>>    agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, [perf:rating="bad"])
>>    specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, ex:Bob, ex:run2)
>> endBundle
>> ]]
>> 
>> The problem is that, if subject to RDF semantics for URI interpretation, I can 
>> see no semantic distinction is possible between
>> 
>>  tool:Bob-2011-11-16
>> and
>>  tool:Bob-2011-11-17
>> 
>> I.e. they are both specializations of ex:Bob, and that is all we can know about 
>> them, as (by the nature of the semantics of URI interpretation) the denotation 
>> of ex:Bob that appears in ex:run1 is the same as the denotation of ex:Bob that 
>> appears in ex:run2.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> I do, however, have a different compromise that provides a hook for introducing 
>> possible semantics later, or in private implementations, without sneaking in 
>> something that could well turn out to be incompatible with, or just different 
>> than, what the RDF group may do for semantics of datasets.
>> 
>> The hook is this: simply allow attributes for the specializationOf relation, but 
>> don't define a specific attribute for bundle.  This would allow you to do a 
>> private implementation of the scheme you describe, but would not allow it to be 
>> mistaken for something that has standardized semantics.  As in:
>> 
>>  specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, ex:Bob,
>>                   [myprivateattribute:bundle=ex:run2])
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> In case you think I'm jumping at shadows here, I'll note that RDF has been here 
>> before.  The original 1999 RDF specification described reification without 
>> formal semantics.  Reification was intended to allow for capturing this kind of 
>> information - i.e. to make assertions about context of use, etc - a kind of 
>> proto-provenance, if you like.  But when the group came to define a formal 
>> semantics for RDF, there were two possible, reasonable and semantically 
>> incompatible approaches; looking at the way that reification was being used "in 
>> the wild", it turned out that there was data out there that corresponded to both 
>> of these (incompatible) approaches.  This was in the very early days of the 
>> semantic web, so the harm done was quite limited.  I think a similar mistake 
>> today would cause much greater harm.
>> 
>> I think the appropriate way forward is to take this tool performance analysis 
>> use-case to the RDF-PROV coordination group, and ask that it be considered as 
>> input when defining semantics for RDF datasets.  I would expect that whatever 
>> semantic structure they choose, it should be able to accommodate the use-case. 
>> Then, we should be better placed to create an appropriate and compatible 
>> contextualization semantics for provenance bundles.  But until then, I think we 
>> invite problems by trying to create a standardized data model structure without 
>> standardized RDF-compatible semantics to accommodate this use-case.
>> 
>> #g
>> --
>> 
>> Tracker, this is ISSUE-385
>> 
>> On 27/06/2012 10:49, 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 17:44:06 UTC