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

Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:53:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6yCBtbanJ2_+V-gupQF0nc6hOOS-8040dQFQZ64mwkD+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

>
> Are you trying to say that if
>
> specializationOf(luc-in-**boston,luc)
> specializationOf(luc-in-soton,**luc)
>
> You cannot see any semantic distinction between luc-in-boston and
> luc-in-soton?????
> Surely, there is a difference!
>
> Difference in identifiers (string value) does not mean they will be
interpreted differently (semantics), unless the "-boston" and "-soton" have
associated formal semantics - with just the above two assertions they do
not.

specializationOf(UK, country) (actually should be instantiation in SW...)
specializationOf(UnitedKingdom, country)


Best,
Satya


> Likewise, tool:Bob-2011-11-16 and tool:Bob-2011-11-17 can be distinguished
> by the additional aspect
> they present (bundle ex:run1 or bundle ex:run2).
>
> In this example, we have three different identifiers
> ex:Bob
> tool:Bob-2011-11-16
> tool:Bob-2011-11-17
> each with a single denotation: i.e. no denotation that is context specific.
>
> I don't see what the issue is.
>
> Luc
>
>
>
>
> Luc
>
>
>  ...
>>
>> 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<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 21:54:02 UTC

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