- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:54:39 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|dcff259725c57853a246f55fdecd3782o4ULsk08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FC7DA8F>
Hi Tim, A definition can be worked out for your suggestion. /A role is the function of an entity, activity, or agent in the context of a relation. The subject and object of relations may be given roles. / e.g. wasAttributedTo(doc, bob, [ prov:oRole="editor", prov:sRole="bestPaper" ] ]) wasInformedBy(a2,a1, [ prov:oRole="publisher", prov:sRole="subscriber" ] +: general relations and simple definition -: obviously, we end up with two attributes/object properties. Question: what about the other linked concepts in n-ary relations: do they have roles? e.g. plan in an association, starter in a start, ender in an end, activity in a delegation/derivation? Luc On 31/05/12 16:40, Timothy Lebo wrote: > FWIW, what about making prov:oHadRole and prov:sHadRole to distinguish between talking about the subject or object of the Involvement? > > > -Tim > > On May 30, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > >> Luc and Graham, >> >> >> On May 30, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> >> >>> On 29/05/2012 22:37, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tim, Stephan, Graham, >>>> >>>> So, you are all defending role, as an alternative way of specializing relations. >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> So, we now need to agree: >>>> 1. on the domain of prov:hadRole >>>> >>> By domain here, I assume you mean the relations for which it may be an attribute. The easy answer would be "all of them". >>> >> "all of them" would be much easier to wrestle. >> >> >>> >>>> 2. on a definition of role that works with this domain >>>> >>>> Currently: we have: >>>> /A role is the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context >>>> of a usage, generation, association, start, and end./ >>>> >>> Yes, the wordsmithing could be tricky if it is to preserve the intuitions. >>> >>> Technically, I think it's just introducing a subrelation of the relation to which it is applied. (So if a binary relation is a set of pairs, its a subset of those pairs, similarly for N-way relations). >>> >> >> I don't follow the sub relation point. Is this following from the previous points (that I also don't follow): >> >> >>>>> This brings up a question: /what is the difference between prov:role and >>>>> prov:type?/ >>>>> >>>> I think it's similar to the difference (in RDF) between subClass and >>>> subProperty, or class and property). >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> We seem to be in agreement that we want roles also for >>>> - invalidation >>>> >>> Consistency and uniformity would suggest so, though in this case I'm not sure what the intuition would be. >>> >>> >>>> The current definition works for: usage, generation, start, end, invalidation. >>>> >>>> This definition: >>>> >>>> /A role is the function of an entity or an *agent* with respect to an activity >>>> >>>> /would also work for association. >>>> >>>> It's not clear this definition would work for: >>>> - delegation >>>> actedOnBehalfOf(ag2,ag1,a) >>>> a role for which agent ? responsible? delegate? >>>> >>> I think it's not so far off - it would presumably be some subset of the roles that ag1 has with respect to a that are being delegated? >>> >>> >>>> - attribution >>>> no activity here. >>>> >>> I think the notion of role works here: e.g. you etal are attributed as editors of PROV-DM, several more of us are attributed as authors. >>> >>> >>>> - communication? >>>> wasInformedBy(a2,a1) here no entity >>>> >>> Again, I think it could apply here. As a student, my writing of an essay would be informed by my learning of material; as a miscreant, my writing of a penance piece (remember "lines"?) could be informed by my misdeed. I think "student" and "miscreant" stand here as roles. >>> >>> >>>> - derivation? >>>> wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,a,g,u) >>>> a role for which entity? >>>> >>> Neither, or both. The role designates a relationship between the entities, not about one of them in isolation. >>> >> Yes, but the role name changes depending on which side you choose to describe. "pupil" becomes "teacher". >> >> I think the resource cited by the prov:involvee (i.e, rdf:object) should be the one whose role we should be describing with hadRole. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> So, I would propose: >>>> /A role is the function of an entity or an *agent* with respect to an activity,/ >>>> /in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, end, and invalidation. >>>> /For all these relations, an activity is subject or object. >>>> >>> My inclination would be to start from a simple technical definition that can apply to all relationships, and then to illustrate it with a series of examples, rather than to try and capture all the (sometimes diverse) intuitions in the definition. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> Can we relax the domain of prov:hadRole to simply prov:Involvement? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> >>>> On 29/05/12 18:29, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29/05/2012 17:02, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tim and Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> We should also add it to Invalidation (because there is an activity). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, it looks like, if we follow Tim's suggestion, roles would be >>>>>> allowed on all qualified relations, except Derivation and Communication. >>>>>> Why not these now? >>>>>> >>>>>> This brings up a question: /what is the difference between prov:role and >>>>>> prov:type?/ >>>>>> >>>>> I think it's similar to the difference (in RDF) between subClass and >>>>> subProperty, or class and property). >>>>> >>>>> (In the RDF formal semantics, they actually look very similar - properties >>>>> have 2-part relational extensions, and types have single-value extensions. >>>>> Several years ago, Peter Patel-Schneider proposed an alternative semantic >>>>> model over the underlying RDF/XML structure that unified these.) >>>>> >>>>> But I think to try and unify them in PROV-DM would cause more head-scratching >>>>> than it would save - I think the notions of type and role carry some useful >>>>> intuition which may be good to keep. (Noting that roles in PROV-DM may be >>>>> 2-way and sometimes multi-way relations.) >>>>> >>>>> #g >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> These are examples of prov:role in prov-dm. >>>>>> >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Paolo, -, [ prov:role="editor" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Simon, -, [ prov:role="contributor" ]) >>>>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [ prov:role="editor" ]) >>>>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Simon, [ prov:role="contributor" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag1, -, [ prov:role="loggedInUser", >>>>>> ex:how="webapp" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag2, ex:wf, [ prov:role="designer", >>>>>> ex:context="project1" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(a, ag1, [ prov:role="loggedInUser" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(a, ag, [ prov:role="operator" ]) >>>>>> used(ex:div01, ex:cell, [ prov:role="divisor" ]) >>>>>> >>>>>> They could have been written as (Sorry for the sometime poor choice of name, but >>>>>> you should get >>>>>> the idea) >>>>>> >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Paolo, -, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsEditor" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:edit1, ex:Simon, -, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsContributor" ]) >>>>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAttributedToEditorEditor" ]) >>>>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Simon, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAttributedToEditorContributor" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag1, -, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsLoggedInUser", ex:how="webapp" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, ex:ag2, ex:wf, [ >>>>>> prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsDesigner", ex:context="project1" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(a, ag1, [ prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsLoggedInUser" ]) >>>>>> wasAssociatedWith(a, ag, [ prov:type="WasAssociatedWithAsOperator" ]) >>>>>> used(ex:div01, ex:cell, [ prov:type="UsedAsDivisor" ]) >>>>>> >>>>>> It feels that all role information can be expressed as type. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, >>>>>> 1. when should we encode this kind of information with prov:type and when should >>>>>> do with prov:role. >>>>>> 2. what distinguishes prov:role from prov:type? >>>>>> 3. what's the definition of prov:role >>>>>> 4. should we drop prov:role, and just use prov:type? >>>>>> >>>>>> Luc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/29/2012 02:54 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Currently, only Association (or Start, End, Usage, Generation) may use hadRole. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking back, I see that one of the prov-o examples violates this: >>>>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html#qualifiedResponsibility >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> by putting a role on a Delegation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Association, Attribution, and Delegation are the three ways to ascribe >>>>>>> responsibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> May we relax hadRole and permit its use on Attribution and Delegation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (so, for this issue, +1; and a new issue to add it to Delegation, too :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 26, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Luc, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's unclear to me if attribution has an underlying activity. If we >>>>>>>> agree on that then the definition falls out and we should could use >>>>>>>> prov:role with respect to activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess the argument could be that there is always an activity that >>>>>>>> links the agent to an entity in the end. Is that what we say in the >>>>>>>> end? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>>>>> Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-384 (prov-role-in-attribution): prov:role in attribution or not? >>>>>>>>> [prov-dm] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the example, >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-attribution, >>>>>>>>> we write: >>>>>>>>> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [prov:role="editor"]) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But in >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-attribute-role >>>>>>>>> we say: >>>>>>>>> The attribute prov:role denotes the function of an entity with respect to an >>>>>>>>> activity, in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, and end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, >>>>>>>>> 1. Do we want to accept prov:role in Attribution? >>>>>>>>> (or, it's not a prov:role but prov:type we should use?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. If yes, does it mean the definition of prov:role needs to be changed? >>>>>>>>> where is the activity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Should we have an optional activity in Attribution? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:55:12 UTC