Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

Hi Luc,

 For the avoidance of doubt, I assume you are not stating
>
>     specializationOf(luc-in-**boston,luc)
>> specializationOf(luc-in-soton,**luc)
>
>
>  Implies that Luc-in-Boston denotes thevsame as Luc-in-soton.
>
> Yes, I am not stating that the above assertions imply that they are the
same (or that they are different).


>  I assume you you are saying that there may be some interpretations
> according to which they denote the same.
>
>  I am fine with this.
>
>    Still, what is broken?
>
> So,  the issue is that the bundles are not additional aspects that can be
used to distinguish between tool:Bob-2011-11-16 and tool:Bob-2011-11-17 (it
is an attribute that does not affect interpretation of entities).

Best,
Satya

>
>
>  Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 22:53, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>
>   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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>