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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-530: Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6) [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:56:39 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0fc437471a56a86a05ed2131337d047ao97Dud08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5072CD87.5000403@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,

I would like to bring this issue to a conclusion.
I have modified the response according to earlier feedback.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-530_.28attributes.29

Thoughts?
Luc

On 10/03/2012 08:53 PM, Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D. wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your comments, Paolo.  You picked up on the core issue here 
> - the use of user-defined attributes to extend the spec for the same 
> semantic reason (e.g., expression of time) but using different methods 
> to do so.
> It would not surprise me if a user wanted to assign time, location, 
> and/or role information to a broader set of relationships than those 
> that currently take those attributes.  As I mentioned, Association and 
> Delegation seem like logical candidates.  If the relationship 
> definition does not support these attributes, it would be trivial for 
> a PROV user to simply provide that information within user-defined 
> attributes.
> There may be cases where a given attribute doesn't make sense for a 
> given relationship.  I believe those cases are rare, and in my opinion 
> the advantage of pre-specifying common attributes and maintaining a 
> higher level of interoperability outweighs the slight loosening of the 
> spec.  It is hard to predict all possible use cases, so unless there 
> are very strong reasons against it, I would lean toward including a 
> set of "core qualifying attributes" in all relationships.
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* public-prov-wg-request@listhub.w3.org
>     [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@listhub.w3.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Paolo Missier
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:57 AM
>     *To:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
>     *Cc:* Provenance Working Group; Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>     *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-530: Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6)
>     [prov-dm]
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I wouldn't be so quickly dismissive of this comment. Given that we
>     have a "loose" semantics for attributes, I find it hard to argue
>     for or against using those same attributes in unanticipated ways.
>     I am wary of this comment:  "these restrictions could be
>     circumvented using user-defined optional attributes if needed, at
>     the expense of maintaining a single standard representation for
>     the information".
>     This is the interop argument again -- the possibility that we see
>     new attributes defined to mimick existing ones but with a
>     different namespace and in a different context.
>       So I would like to hear more comments from the group on this.
>
>     As a minor point, I don't think this is a good argument to mention:
>     "No other external comments made a request for allowing such
>     attributes in more concepts."
>     I believe the merit of comments should not be based by their
>     popularity amongs the public...
>
>     --Paolo
>
>
>
>      On 9/24/12 7:46 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     Find a proposed response for this in the wiki at:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-530_.28attributes.29
>>     For convenience, it is copied below.
>>     Comments, feedback?
>>     Best regards,
>>     Luc
>>
>>
>>           ISSUE-530 (attributes)
>>
>>       * Original
>>         email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0120.html
>>
>>       * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/530
>>       * Group Response
>>           o The group has given careful considerations to attributes
>>             in prov-dm, specifically time, location and role.
>>           o The group could not reach consensus to allow these
>>             attributes to more concepts of the data model.
>>           o No other external comments made a request for allowing
>>             such attributes in more concepts.
>>           o Role:
>>               + We have already elaborated on roles in our response
>>                 to ISSUE-532
>>           o Location:
>>               + While a notion of location is fairly intuitive for an
>>                 activity or entity, it is less intuitive for
>>                 associations for instance. In an association, the
>>                 activity may have a location, and the agent may have
>>                 a location. It is however unclear what the location
>>                 of the association itself may be.
>>           o Time:
>>               + The same comments apply for time. However, in this
>>                 case, the constraints document explains what kind of
>>                 ordering constraints exist, between an agent and
>>                 activity, for instance.
>>       * So overall, the group could not find consensus to broaden
>>         these attributes to other relations in a meaningful manner.
>>         Given implementation, using the PROV extension mechanism, are
>>         however able to add similar attributes for their specific needs.
>>       * References:
>>           o Roles:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-532_.28Role.29
>>
>>           o Resolution on
>>             roles:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-07#resolution_2
>>
>>           o Time
>>             constraints:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0120.html
>>
>>       * Proposed changes:none
>>       * Original author's acknowledgement:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 10/09/12 09:54, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>     PROV-ISSUE-530: Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6)   [prov-dm]
>>>
>>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/530
>>>
>>>     Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>     On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.7.2_.28Table_6.29
>>>
>>>     ISSUE-463
>>>
>>>     The restrictions on when time, location and role can be used should be reviewed after the public feedback period closes and changes are made to the model. In particular, I think there is justification for allowing other relationships, such as Association and Delegation, to take these attributes. The model would be more flexible without these restrictions (which could be circumvented using user-defined optional attributes if needed, at the expense of maintaining a single standard representation for the information).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>
>
>
>     -- 
>     -----------  ~oo~  --------------
>     Paolo Missier -Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk,pmissier@acm.org  
>     School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
>     http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>

-- 
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
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 12:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC