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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:43:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=So0jt7dMqK9_LGaPDh58Q_GRE=g4xL0uwxz=dSYFMYqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round to, I
> question whether we actually need to have these concepts in the DM.
> Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain the
> relationship between provenance entities and (possibly dynamic) real world
> things.  With the looser description of the provenance model terms, I don't
> see why this level of detail is needed in the data model.

Then you don't recollect correctly. They were defined because there was an
acknowledgement that there were multiple symbols that denoted a common
thing in the world. Sometimes they reflected different aspects of the same
thing (alternativeOf) and sometimes they had a subsumptive quality

> The purpose of separating the DM description from its sytriucter
> interpretation is, IMO, to provide a relatively easy point of entry,
> particularly for developers who might generate provenance information for
> artifacts created by their software.

Then the DM is not actually normative, but instructional. Which document is
intended to be normative?

> It may be that, when dealing with the stricter interpretation of
> provenance per Part 2, these ideas need to be re-introduced.  But in that
> context, they could be introduced in purely formal terms, as additional
> constraints that underpin some of the other constraints.  Then, I think
> such descriptions could be rooted in the formalization (per semantics) of
> the notion of invariance of entity provenance.

These are certainly things that someone who is looking for a looser form of
provenance might not bother with, but we have shown (Stian gave a perfect
example with the BBC website) that information resources need this kind of
abstraction in order to provide the correct level of granularity. Tim,
Deborah, others, and I wrote a paper to this effect in IEEE Intelligent
Systems to this effect (http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/parallelIdentitiesOGD),
and are elaborating on this point in a paper for IPAW. This is still
unpublished, but in our integration ontology between FRBR and PROV, we
found that 14 of the 18 relatedEndeavour subproperties map to one or more
of wasDerivedFrom, alternateOf, or specializationOf. Most of these are
either specializationOf or alternateOf, but there are overlaps between all
three. For instance revisionOf is a subproperty of wasDerivedFrom and
alternativeOf. Simon's excellent example could be realized using these
sorts of properties.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 13:44:03 UTC

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