- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:46:14 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I simplified the Involvement hierarchy per the proposal last week and Paul's suggestion below.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/f617b8dca236
Regards,
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Looks good. I think this will simplify the presentation and leave the subproperty hierarchy to the properties. To follow your pattern, I would move AgentInvolvement up one level as well:
>
> So at the top leve:
>
> prov:Involvement
> --- prov:ActivityInvolvement
> --- prov:EntityInvolvement
> --- prov:AgentInvolvement
>
> cheers,
> Paul
>
> Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> prov-wg,
>>
>>> However the newer, split DM has changed some of these semantics, I am
>>> not now (quickly) able to find any relation subtypes that cause
>>> 'inheritence' of attributes and record id. The DM constraints [2] does
>>> not seem to inherit attributes, but allow 'any' attributes ("for some
>>> gAttr") in the inferred relations, except for this - perhaps strange
>>> one:
>>>
>>> If the records entity(e,attrs) and wasAssociatedWith(a,e) hold for
>>> some identifiers a, e, and attribute-values attrs, then the record
>>> agent(e,attrs) also holds. So to be WD4 compliant we should not have
>>> any hierarchy of prov:Involvement beyond them being involvements.
>>
>>
>> For the sake of simplicity, I would like to propose that we follow Stian's suggestion regarding the subclass hierarchy under Involvement.
>> The critical aspect that we are conveying with the Involvement hierarchy is that we are referencing some binary relation to an Activity, Entity, or Agent.
>> Anything further is not provided by the hierarchy, at the cost of confusion.
>>
>> Does anyone have an objection to flattening the hierarchy to "stop" at the primary Elements (Activity, Entity, Agent)?
>>
>> prov:Involvement
>> prov:ActivityInvolvement
>> prov:Generation
>> prov:Inform
>> prov:StartByActivity
>> prov:EntityInvolvement
>> prov:AgentInvolvement
>> prov:Association
>> prov:End # This raised a level
>> prov:Start # This raised a level
>> prov:Attribution
>> prov:Responsibility
>> prov:Derivation
>> prov:Source # This raised a level
>> prov:Revision # This raised 2 levels
>> prov:Quotation
>> prov:Usage
>> prov:Trace # This raised a level (b/c it refers to either Activities or Entities)
>>
>> The property hierarchy would be free to differ from the class hierarchy.
>>
>> In the absence of objections, I will make the change by the end of the week.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>> Luc - is this the correct interpretation?
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/
>>> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 14:46:53 UTC