- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:12:18 +0000
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|24d8a1a0b5d37e16a9d02f6e01fa9e46o2BHCN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F5E2E72>
Hi Stephan,
I repeat what I said before, it's not unreasonable to allow for the plan
to be specified and not the agent
(with the understanding that the agent exists, but has not be
asserted). It's a *convenience short-cut*,
it does not change the intention of the ActivityAssociation.
Why should we introduce an extra relation:
hadPlan(id,a,p,-,attr)
when
wasAssociatedWith(id,a,-,p,attr)
can do it?
To some extent, this applies to all optional arguments of prov-dm,
it was indicated today in the prov-o call, that the prov-rdf translation
assumes that
the corresponding line(s) have to be dropped for missing arguments.
(If I understood correctly)
Luc
On 03/12/2012 04:30 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Stephan
>>
>> As far as I understand, the ontology defines the class Association
>> and the properties
>> agent: AgentInvolvement -> Agent
>> hadPlan: Association -> Plan
>>
>> I don't think see any minimum cardinality required here.
>> So it appears the ontology allows for
>>
>> :a1 prov:hadQualifiedAssociation [a prov:Association
>> hadPlan :pl1]
>>
>> Why can't we allow it in prov-dm?
>
> PROV-O cardinality may not be completely aligned with the DM at
> present. I suggest we review this once we have a forward direction on
> this.
>
> In DM:
>
> Why make Agent optional in an Activity-Agent Relation?
>
> The plan is currently qualifying information about the relationship
> between an activity and the associated agent.
>
> plan: an /optional/ identifier for the plan adopted by the agent in
> the context of this activity;
>
> By the current definition in DM it does not make sense to have a plan
> in the association ("... plan adopted by the agent in the context of
> this activity") without a corresponding agent.
>
> Does an Activity-Agent relation make sense with no agent?
>
> If we are intent to associate a plan to an activity directly, then we
> should use a specialization of Entity-Agent Relation in which agents
> are optional and are used to qualify the relationship between the
> activity and plan. This may be the only way forward.
>
> hadPlan(id,a,p,ag,attr)
>
> --Stephan
>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2012 08:47 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> Did you get my last email on this?
>>>
>>> The email with:
>>>
>>> "1) If we take an open world view, then I don't think there is an
>>> issue where we know that a specific plan was adopted by an otherwise
>>> unknown agent. We can represent the agent, we just won't have any
>>> characterizing information about the agent except that it was the
>>> agent that adopted this specific plan in this activity.
>>>
>>> 2) If that is not desirable, I suggest adding an Activity-Entity
>>> Relation to link Plans to Activities with optional information about
>>> which Agent(s) used the plan."
>>>
>>> It appears some of my emails weren't going out for a while, so you
>>> may never have gotten it. The email never showed up on the list,
>>> and I never got a reply so I am not sure you have seen it.
>>>
>>> I my preference is 1) and I expect your preference is 2), but I
>>> think having an Agent-Activity Association without an Agent will be
>>> confusing and it goes against the current definition of the
>>> relation. If a pure Plan-Activity relation is desired we may have
>>> to just mint a new relation.
>>>
>>> --Stephan
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>> Yes, see my non-converging discussion with Stephan on ISSUE-203.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>> University of Southampton
>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Mar 2012, at 02:22, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu
>>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure - now we can't have a planned activity without an
>>>>>> agent -
>>>>>> so there will be phantom agents appearing.
>>>>>
>>>>> ^^ is there a separate issue for this? It seems odd that an
>>>>> Activity can't mention a plan without also bringing an Agent to
>>>>> the game.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also no way to say that the associated agent is actually
>>>>>> *performing* the activity. And so we only know that an agent
>>>>>> performed
>>>>>> something with relation to the activity, and that something might or
>>>>>> might not have been following the associated plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are DM issues, though.. so you can close this issue. I would
>>>>>> have to think of a good use-case of a plan/recipe which there is no
>>>>>> agent following - perhaps that's not possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:41, Daniel Garijo
>>>>>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
>>>>>> <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Stian,
>>>>>>> this issue is still raised and pending review.
>>>>>>> now we have Plans to link an agent and a plan to an activity,
>>>>>>> with an Association.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that we have addressed this issue, and it could be
>>>>>>> closed. Thoughts?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/9/28 Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu <mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don’t know that it’s a big deal, but I think of hadRecipe as
>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>> very indirect rather than a subclass of used. I’d like to
>>>>>>>> assert that the
>>>>>>>> “software development” PE was intended to satisfy the plan as
>>>>>>>> documented in
>>>>>>>> “Work Breakdown Structure element 2.7” but in a use case like
>>>>>>>> that, it seems
>>>>>>>> a stretch to say the PE used the plan versus that I’m just
>>>>>>>> asserting that
>>>>>>>> the PE was intended to fulfill the plan (perhaps just the
>>>>>>>> selection of this
>>>>>>>> PE versus another one was affected by the plan and, after the
>>>>>>>> selection of
>>>>>>>> the PE, the plan was not directly used to guide it, etc.).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Jim McCusker
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:21 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>>>>> Cc: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:public-prov-wg@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing
>>>>>>>> recipe link
>>>>>>>> [Formal Model]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a
>>>>>>>> subproperty of
>>>>>>>> used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of
>>>>>>>> Recipe/Plan already
>>>>>>>> (this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> other than used?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>>>>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier
>>>>>>>> <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now
>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>> model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
>>>>>>>>> isn't that thread relevant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
>>>>>>>> rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of
>>>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>>>> you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
>>>>>>>> the plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it
>>>>>>>> relies
>>>>>>>> on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
>>>>>>>> the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple
>>>>>>>> link, and
>>>>>>>> I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or be much in
>>>>>>>> conflict with ISSUE-95.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe
>>>>>>>> - we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we
>>>>>>>> go for
>>>>>>>> ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jim McCusker
>>>>>>>> Programmer Analyst
>>>>>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>>>>>>>> Yale School of Medicine
>>>>>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> |
>>>>>>>> (203) 785-6330
>>>>>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>>>>>>> <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PhD Student
>>>>>>>> Tetherless World Constellation
>>>>>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>>>>>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
>>>>>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu <http://tw.rpi.edu/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>
>
--
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
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 17:12:58 UTC