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

Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:45:16 -0500
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C78189D0-2D8A-44FA-AAA4-94C8AB057F31@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Since the motivation for bundles (and to some extent contextualization) seems to be provenance of provenance", it's unsurprising that object vs meta-level issues are appearing.

It may be inevitable that people want to do this, but it's up to us to decide whether to codify it.  Is there a body of current practice?  Do a lot of existing vocabularies allow something like this, and are we picking a popular design?  Or are we making something up as we go?

Concretely, what in the example breaks if we just say specializatonOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, ex:Bob)?


On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi James,
> I was wondering about your notion of "normal attributes" and the notion of "underlying Thing".
> The use case we discuss, where a piece of software (rating tool) reads some provenance and,
> with application-specific reasoning, rates entities blurs the distinction.
> In the example:
>    agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, [perf:rating="good"])  // this is the rated agent
>    specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, ex:Bob, ex:run1)  // or contextualizationOf
> The rated agent tool:Bob-2011-11-16 is generated after the tool has processed the contents of ex:run1.
> In that case, the syntax, by this I mean the bundle, is part of the semantics.
> Isn't this inevitable with "online uses" of provenance, where processing of provenance helps
> makes decisions in the application domain?
> Luc
> On 06/28/2012 04:35 AM, James Cheney wrote:
>> I don't view the property "being described in bundle b" as the same kind of attribute as normal attributes - to me, attributes describe properties of the underlying Thing, in the semantics, not properties of the entities describing the Thing in the syntax.  Of course, not all of us believe in Things.
>> One can easily get paradoxes by blurring this distinction [1].
> -- 
> 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 Thursday, 28 June 2012 12:45:56 UTC

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