Re: [provo] Difference between wasInformedBy and wasStartedByActivity (ttl examples)

Hi Tim,
yes, I was refering to the range, sorry.

Thanks for your answer.
Best,
Daniel

2012/5/9 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

>
> On May 8, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
> Hi Luc, Tim.
> One question: what would be the domain of the unqualified wasStartedBy
> relationship?
>
>
> Activity
>
> (but do you mean to ask about the range of wasStartedBy?)
>
>
> (talking form the RDF PROV-O perspective, not the DM. The DM new draft
> looks good to me).
>
> Would it be (Entity U Activity) or just Entity?
>
>
> The range of wasStartedBy would be just Entity, and the qualification
> (Start) would be EntityInvolvement.
>
>
> In order to support "identifier (a1) for the activity
> that generated the (possibly unspecified) entity (e)" it should be the
> former, right?.
>
>
> prov:hadActivity would reference a1 on the instance of Start.
>
> :foot_race
>    a prov:Activity;
>    prov:wasStartedBy :bang;
>    prov:qualifiedStart [
>         a prov:Start;
>          prov:hadActivity :firing_of_pistol;
>     ];
>
> A consequence of this is that if one wants to cite the activity and does
> not care about the Entity (trigger), they must use the extra qualification
> modeling.
> i.e., one cannot say :foot_race prov:wasStartedBy :firing_of_pistol .
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> 2012/5/8 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
>>  Hi Tim,
>> Yes, it would remain EntityInvolvement, with optional hadActivity.
>>  Luc
>>
>>  Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> On 8 May 2012, at 22:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>   Luc,
>>
>>  I like how either an Entity or Activity can be optional in a Start. It
>> seems flexible for the variety of perspectives one may have or want to take.
>>
>>  Would Start always be a EntityInvolvement with an optional hadActivity?
>> I am comfortable with this, since regardless of whether you name/describe
>> the entity, the trigger was involved.
>>
>>  +1 to the new draft. It seems to resolve my concerns.
>>
>>  Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>  On May 8, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Stian, Paolo, all,
>>
>> I have encoded the proposal
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/31e2dc0de82d/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html
>>
>> If people are happy, we can then adjust wasEndedBy similarly.
>> I propose to take a vote on this on Thursday.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 08/05/12 17:06, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> That dual-mode style would confuse the interpretation of wasStartedBy,
>> the activity becomes a token (and thus and entity)
>>
>> Perhaps better would be to add the activity as an optional parameter to
>> wasStartedBy in dm and add prov:hadActivity/prov:startedByActivity to
>> prov:Start. It would mirror the activity of derivations.
>>
>> An activity start, written wasStartedBy(id,a,e,t,a2, attrs) in PROV-N,
>> has:
>>
>> id: an OPTIONAL identifier for the activity start;
>> (..)
>> activity: an OPTIONAL activity (a2) which generated the (possibly
>> unspecified) entity (e)
>>
>> attributes: an OPTIONAL set (attrs)of attribute-value pairs representing
>> additional information about this activity start.
>>
>> Then mirror this for wasEndedBy.
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>> On May 8, 2012 3:03 PM, "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stian,
>>> instead of removing the constraint that entity and activity are disjoint
>>> we could
>>> also (as another possibility) have activities OR entities as possible
>>> domain
>>> of wasStartedBy. Now that we agreed on having an OWL-RL ++ profile,
>>> this would be possible.
>>>
>>> Thus, we would drop wasStartedByActivity, since wasStartedBy would
>>> cover already the desired functionality, right?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> 2012/5/8 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > +1, repositioning wasStartedByActivity as a "blurrier" form of
>>>> wasStartedBy seems to finally find a place for it in the model.
>>>> > Though, like Khalid, I'm not sure it will be used much, or correctly.
>>>>
>>>>  It will certainly still be confusing, as it was for me. As you said,
>>>> most wasStartedBy() would also come with a twin used() relationship
>>>> (and therefore imply a wasInformedBy() relation).   At some point
>>>> wasStartedBy was sub-property of wasInformedBy (making the choice
>>>> simple) - but not anymore.
>>>>
>>>> As Luc raised, why not also wasEndedByActivity,  wasStartedByAgent etc.?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it might just not be worth it to keep wasStartedByActivity(). It's
>>>> a bad sign if it's confusing to even the ontology designers, then how
>>>> is any meaningful provenance exchange happen, where one party apply
>>>> wasInformedBy like wasStartedByActivity, and the other the opposite?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A second solution would be to remove the constraint that activity and
>>>> entity are disjoint. Then you could say wasStartedBy(a2, a1),
>>>> wasEndedBy(a2, a3) etc. - the activity can play the role of an entity
>>>> as well, rather than inventing invisible phantom token entities. We
>>>> are talking blurry provenance here, right, we don't know quite the
>>>> nature of the interaction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > How can it be reframed so that wasStartedByActivity can "grow" in
>>>> details like Derivation does with hadActivity, hadUsage, and hadGeneration?
>>>>
>>>>  By adding a separate wasStartedBy() I would believe you have given all
>>>> the information (as an activity can only be started once).  Or is it
>>>> allowed to be wasStartedBy() two or more entities..? Luc?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>