Re: PROV-ISSUE-195: Section 5.3.3.3 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5)

Hi Luc,
I am fine with closing this issue.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Satya
>
> I don't think that any of the points you have raised in this issue still
> applies since we introduce alternateOf/complementOf and we
> refactored the document in three parts.
>
> In particular, we no longer talk about record.
>
> So, i propose to close this issue.
> Regards,
> Luc
>
> On 12/07/2011 02:14 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-195: Section 5.3.3.3 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/195<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/195>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product:
>>
>> Hi,
>> The following are my comments for Section 5.3.3.3 of the PROV-DM (as on
>> Dec 5):
>>
>> 5.3.3.3 Complementarity Record
>> 1. "A complementarity record is a relationship between two entities..."
>>
>> Comment: Is the complementarity record a relation between two entity
>> records or entities. As I mentioned earlier, there is a distinction between
>> the entity and assertions about the entity (or entity records), especially
>> in case of description logic, OWL, and RDF. Hence, the characterizations of
>> entities are records or views or assertions about the entity and are not
>> the same as the entity.
>>
>> 2. "This intuition is made more precise by considering the entities that
>> form the representations of entities at a certain point in time. An entity
>> record represents, by means of attribute-value pairs, a thing and its
>> situation in the world, which remain constant over a characterization
>> interval."
>>
>> Comment: The current grammar for entity record do not include any notion
>> of "characterization interval" - is it event or time instants?
>>
>> 3. It is very hard to understand what Figure 3 conveys without an
>> accompanying description.
>>
>> 4. Suppose entity records A and B share a set P of attributes, and each
>> of them has other attributes in addition to P. If the values assigned to
>> each attribute in P are compatible between A and B, then we say that A
>> is-complement-of B, and B is-complement-of A, in a symmetrical fashion.
>>
>> Comment: This is a very loosely worded constraint with too many implicit
>> assumptions that are beyond any Web application to interpret consistently
>> and it can be easily demonstrated that it trivially holds for any arbitrary
>> set of entities, which was not the original intention I believe.
>> For example, if we consider the following two assertions on their own
>> entity(rs_m1,[ex:membership=**250, ex:year=1900])
>> entity(rs_m2,[ex:membership=**300, ex:year=1945])
>>
>> What prevents from asserter A to create another record entity(rs_m1,
>> [name="County Cricket Club"]) and asserter B to create record entity
>> (rs_m2, [speaker of the house = "ABC"])? Then, together the four entity
>> records can be used to assert wasComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_m2), which does not
>> make any sense? There is no correlation between the identifiers being used
>> to assert the different entity records. How is a user or provenance
>> application supposed to know when to assert complement of relation between
>> two entity records?
>>
>> In data integration, there is a notion of "reference reconciliation" that
>> uniquely identifies entities based on their attribute-value pairs [1]. The
>> current state-of-the-art reference reconciliation algorithms are highly
>> complex multi-step approaches, including machine learning approaches - how
>> is a provenance application supposed to implement reference reconciliation
>> for the current complementOf property defined in the DM?
>>
>> [1] http://dl.acm.org/citation.**cfm?id=1066168<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1066168>
>>
>> 5. "An assertion "wasComplementOf(B,A)" holds over the temporal
>> intersection of A and B, only if:
>> * if a mapping can be established from an attribute X of entity record
>> identified by B to an attribute Y of entity record identified by A, then
>> the values of A and B must be consistent with that mapping;
>> * entity record identified by B has some attribute that entity record
>> identified by A does not have.
>>
>> Comment: Similar as above comment, how is this constraint practical when
>> there is no easy mechanism available for reference reconciliation?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>