- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:37:25 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
It's a very old issue. I thought it was agreed that all properties (which dont encode relations) of an entity would be regarded as attributes. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 7 May 2012, at 16:30, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > Luc, > > I'm looking to close this issue. > > "proper" provenance is not part of the current prov-o WD. > > As you know, the building story in prov-o is "starting points, expanded, qualified" and then "collections". > > Since the notion of "proper" has evolved since F2F2, could you summarize what aspects you think should still be addressed in prov-o? > For me, the notion of proper hinges around specOf, where "improper" asserters assert details on less specific entities than they should. > > Thanks, > Tim > > > On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Tim, >> >> I think that somewhere in the prov-o html document, there should be a section >> that talks about "proper" provenance (or whatever its name is), and discusses attributes. >> So, as long as we remember to discuss this, I think we can close the issue. >> >> Luc >> >> On 05/03/12 22:06, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> Indeed, we no longer make the distinction between characterizing and non-characterizing attributes. >>>> >>>> In "proper" provenance, attributes are still very important, since they help describe a "partial state". >>>> Hence, some constraints exist around attributes: >>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#account-and-accountEntity >>>> (For instance, see 3rd bullet point). >>>> >>> Yes, the 3rd bullet and "It is not permitted to add new attributes to a given entity" in the note. >>> >>> >>>> But I think we came to the conclusion that any rdf property for an entity is regarded as an attribute. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Isn't it the answer to this issue? >>>> >>> I hope that it is. I am comfortable with the phrasing in the DM. >>> Any rdf property outside of the prov namespace that describes and Entity is "fixed". >>> (as you noted, we can "use" it again, so that would make a new attribute within the prov namespace but that did not affect the partial state.) >>> >>> >>> Does this mean we can close the issue? Do we need the DM to say something further in light of this ISSUE? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/03/12 19:13, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Luc, >>>>> >>>>> The distinction between characterizing attributes and non-characterizing attributes has faded in the latest versions of the DM. >>>>> >>>>> Do you still have concerns about being able to find "frozen" attributes for a given entity? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-89 (what-entity-attributes): How do we find the attributes of an entity? [Formal Model] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/89 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>> On product: Formal Model >>>>>> >>>>>> The conceptual model defines an entity in terms of an identifier and a list of attribute-value pairs. It is indeed crucial for the asserter to identify the attributes that have been frozen in a given entity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, the ontology does not seem to identify these attributes. >>>>>> >>>>>> To say that these attributes could be found by looking at all the properties for this entity does not work with an open world assumption. >>>>>> >>>>>> What mechanism do we have to identify these attributes? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 15:38:07 UTC