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

Re: Quality check of ProvRDF

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:03:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtk-q__4akgJLvDQT40p922G7fWtutaKh-W1+Wvksk=_HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 15:38, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> I've looked over part of your mapping, and I wrote down a new design objective "rule".
> Do you agree with it?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#4._Naming_style_for_prov:entity_prov:activity_prov:agent_is_RESERVED

I'm OK with the principle, but not sure about the consequences, in
particular if we use 'had' form.

That would mean the involvements will 'have' things they did not
really have, but were just properties of the involvement?

I believe these are the changes:

:quotation a prov:Quotation ;
  prov:hadQuoter :quoter ;
  prov:hadQuoted :quoted .

I'm OK with that, as quoter/quoted are roles in a Quotation acti... involvement.

:derivation a prov:Derivation ;
  prov:hadUsage :use1 ;
  prov:hadGeneration :gen1 .

Not so sure about this.. The derivation *had* some usage? *Had* a generation?

Perhaps a verb that also signifies involvement of some kind.. the
generation was the *outcome* of the derivation, and the usage was the
premiss.  What about:

:derivation a prov:Derivation ;
  prov:basedOnUsage :use1 ;
  prov:contributedToGeneration :gen1 . # There might be other
derivations for same generation!

And should we then not also rename these back to was-form?

:e2 prov:alternateOf :e1 .
:e3 prov:specializationOf :e1 .


:e2 prov:wasAlternateOf :e1 .
:e3 prov:wasSpecializationOf :e1 .

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 10:04:13 UTC

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