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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-103 (qualifiers-and-roles): Qualifiers and roles in the ontology [Formal Model]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:47:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcqohGo2YkhXXOQVH56PY+j3-byEYTXLqgwnXiGjiwixw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Hi Stian,
I think that this issue is out of date, since we have reached consensus in
the modeling.
Can we close it?

2011/9/28 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-103 (qualifiers-and-roles): Qualifiers and roles in the
> ontology [Formal Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/103
> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> On product: Formal Model
> file:///home/stain/stuff/src/provenance-wg/prov/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#role
> defines a prov:Role as a subclass of prov:Entity.
> the example shows:
> <CrimeFile#Alice> cf:assumesRole cf:Author
> Beyond "assumesRole" here being in the crime ontology, I don't
> particularly like this approach, because if #Alice is controlling two
> different process executions, one as an #Author and one as a #Editor, that
> can't reliably be expressed with the single #Alice. My understanding of
> using Role as a subclass of Entity was that you could specialise the entity
> with a new "roled" entity which locks down which role is assumed. This
> roled entity (prov:EntityInRole I proposed to call it) can then be used by
> prov:used, prov:wasControlledBy etc. It looks slightly strange for the
> prov:wasGeneratedBy case, though.
> But in the formal model, it has not yet been resolved how roles are meant
> to be used in the places where the conceptual model uses roles. In
> particular the model now declares the use of more general *qualifieres*,
> which can be attached to wasGeneratedBy, used, wasDerivedFrom and
> wasControlledBy, where the qualifier "role" (we assume something like
> prov:role in the ontology) is reserved for the purpose cf:assumesRole tries
> to fit - although in the conceptual model a role is just a string, not an
> identifier/URI.
> Are there any further examples of such qualifiers beyond "role"?
> Given the conceptual model's requirements for arbitrary attributes
> attached to the generation, use, derivation and control, I am not convinced
> that my previously suggested EntityInRole (as a rename of prov:Role), using
>  prov:wasComplementOf or prov:assumedBy back to the original entity, would
> do the trick anymore. The question would be which attributes are part of
> the entity, and which of the relation, it also becomes quite cumbersome
> having to repeat the characterising attributes every time.
> So one way out is to introduce a new prov:EntityRelation class instead.
> This is not a subclass of prov:Entity (and does not describe something in
> the world), but is added by owl:union to the domain/range of the properties
> which relates to entities.  Here any attributes will correspond do the
> qualifiers, and this would be an old-style n-ary glue class. The shadowed
> entity is only included by a prov:relatedToEntity property, the old
> attributes of the entity is not mirrored.
> Any other takers? I don't want to focus on an OWL vs RDF discussion, just
> some practical solutions would be great - I struggled with the lack of how
> to describe roles when doing the workflow example in
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#modeling-an-example-scientific-workflow-scenario
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:47:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC