W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity reference [Primer]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:19:24 -0700
Message-Id: <5AAD3CD0-24FC-4614-B8D1-E6AF53CCC2B4@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
The proposed solution works for me.

--Stephan

On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:30 AM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Stephan,
> 
> I agree that the activity-specific delegation is important. I want, though, to balance this against increasing the complexity of the examples.
> 
> I propose that, instead of an additional example and accompanying explanation, we merely state that it is possible to express activity-specific delegation and refer to the specifications for details.
> 
> I have added the following to Section 3.4 of the working draft:
> 
> "It would also be possible to express the more specific statement that Derek worked on the organization's behalf for a particular activity, rather than in general, and so may have acted on behalf of other organizations for other activities. See the PROV specifications for details on how to express activity-specific delegation."
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> 
> Do you think this adequately addresses the issue?
> 
> thanks,
> Simon
> 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance Model:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Stephan Zednik [zednis@rpi.edu]
> Sent: 24 January 2013 17:30
> To: Miles, Simon
> Cc: Provenance Working Group
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity    reference [Primer]
> 
> Simon,
> 
> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.
> 
> The initial actedOnBehlafOf example now reads better, but I wonder if we should later in the primer include an example where the activity is specified in a delegation?
> 
> I think it is important to let the user know they can make a blanket actedOnBehalfOf assertion between two agents or an actedOnBehalfOf assertion whose scope is limited to a specified activity.
> 
> --Stephan
> 
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 2:55 AM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Stephan,
>> 
>> I've made the changes to the primer suggested below, to give consistency to the actedOnBehalfOf examples. If you are happy with the solution, could you close the issue?
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Simon
>> 
>> Dr Simon Miles
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>> 
>> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
>> Sent: 07 November 2012 14:49
>> To: Miles, Simon
>> Cc: Provenance Working Group
>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity   reference [Primer]
>> 
>> Simon,
>> 
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:37 AM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Tim, Stephan,
>>> 
>>> Yes and no...
>>> 
>>> Yes, I now know how to include the activity in the example, thanks. I suggest it would be good to include the activity in the examples for qualifiedDelegation and/or Delegation in the PROV-O document.
>> 
>> 
>> I completely agree; it is not evident, and it can be better. I've added ISSUE-593 to handle this.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> But it presents a dilemma for the primer. Currently, PROV-O qualified relationships are introduced in the roles section. This seems a natural place, as roles are otherwise fairly simple annotations, so the explanation does not get too complex. Agents and responsibility, including actedOnBehalfOf, are introduced earlier in the primer, partly because in the roles section we discuss the roles of agents. Adding qualified relations to the agents section would not be great, as agents are a 'base' concept, and I want to avoid this section getting complex.
>>> 
>>> I think the least worst option might be to keep the example using the binary actedOnBehalfOf relation, and change the PROV-N and PROV-XML to match. The binary PROV-O example actually better matches the text than the PROV-N and PROV-XML, as it is not said that the delegation was for a particular activity.
>> 
>> 
>> This sounds good and seems to follow the direction of simplification that we should have.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Any opinions on this?
>>> 
>>> Stephan - while invesitigating this, I noticed that while activity is an optional element of Delegation in the prov.xsd schema, it is shown as compulsory in the schema snippet in prov.xsd.html.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> Simon
>>> 
>>> Dr Simon Miles
>>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>> 
>>> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
>>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
>>> Sent: 06 November 2012 14:58
>>> To: Miles, Simon
>>> Cc: Provenance Working Group
>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity  reference [Primer]
>>> 
>>> Simon,
>>> 
>>> Does this resolve it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I believe the relevant activity can be specified by the prov:hadActivity property in a qualified Delegation.
>>>> 
>>>> ex:derek prov:qualifiedDelegation [
>>>>    a prov:Delegation ;
>>>>    prov:agent ex:chartgen ;
>>>>    prov:hadActivity ex:compose ;
>>>> ] .
>>>> 
>>>> --Stephan
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:08 PM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello PROV-O authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not sure how to resolve the issue below. Can you help? The examples for actedOnBehalfOf and Delegation in the PROV-O spec do not seem to explicitly link the actvity to the delegation. How should the PROV-O be written?
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dr Simon Miles
>>>>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>>>>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>>>>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>>>> 
>>>>> Efficient Multi-Granularity Service Composition:
>>>>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1396/
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
>>>>> Sent: 01 November 2012 20:05
>>>>> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity reference [Primer]
>>>>> 
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity reference [Primer]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/591
>>>>> 
>>>>> Raised by: Stephan Zednik
>>>>> On product: Primer
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PROV-N example specifies that ex:derek was acting on behalf of ex:chartgen during the ex:compose activity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> agent(ex:chartgen,
>>>>>    [prov:type='prov:Organization',
>>>>>     foaf:name="Chart Generators Inc"])
>>>>> actedOnBehalfOf(ex:derek, ex:chartgen, ex:compose)
>>>>> 
>>>>> This reference to ex:compose is not present in the PROV-O encoding of this same example.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ex:derek prov:actedOnBehalfOf ex:chartgen .
>>>>> ex:chartgen a prov:Agent ;
>>>>>          a prov:Organization ;
>>>>>          foaf:name "Chart Generators Inc" .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:30 UTC