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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:34:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRqXk2A6RNRhvYY=DZ9fe2DyjMjuPJXayfGb8N7kU3EzHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Nice one Tim.

Paul


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

>  Thanks, Simon.
>
>  I've included them.
>
>  -Tim
>
>
>  On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>  Hello,
>
>  The response looks good. I might add:
>
>  An activity having used an entity and generated another, does not
> necessarily mean that the latter entity was derived from the former. So
> adding a dummy activity actually conveys less information than
> wasDerivedFrom.
>
>  It is important that provenance describes the past, regardless of the
> level of detail expressed. actsOnBehalfOf would incorrectly imply that the
> delegation relationship holds currently. This might or might not be the
> case, but is not part of provenance, so not expressible in PROV.
>
>  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:* Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
> *Sent:* 14 March 2013 13:57
> *To:* Provenance Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived,
> wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)
>
>  prov-wg,
>
>  I've drafted a response to Jacobo's comments at:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR#ISSUE-651
>
>  Any comments welcome.
>
>  Regards,
> Tim
>
>  On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/651
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CABC+A3LHXh1r1BHqZR7eXqes8dRFKVg3A6oBB0F=mgUimL6r8g@mail.gmail.com
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been looking at PROV-O and I intend to use or extend it for a
> project where we need provenance metadata for named rdf graphs. I have
> a “triple” of suggestions that come from vocabulary restrictions I
> have thought of for my own use, but since I see the vocabulary is
> still in a CR stage, I have decided to expose them for the case they
> might be included in the base vocabulary. However, I must say I am
> quite a newcomer into RDF and related technologies, so I might well be
> very wrong.
>
> 1. I wonder if instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy
> instance of Activity could always be used to connect the original and
> obtained entities, even without further properties. This would make
> modeling more homogenous, which might make things easier for automated
> tools, and would be straightforward to add information about the
> activity if it was discovered in a later stage, without the need of
> removing triples. I think these advantages and the reduction of the
> vocabulary make up for the overhead in extra nodes.
>
> 2. The existence of wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we
> already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity
> that led to the Entity. I am aware that without cardinality
> constraints between Activity and Entity, an activity can generate
> several Entities and therefore an Agent involved in an Activity is not
> necessarily involved in one of its generated Entities. But maybe this
> would be a reason to consider introducing cardinality constraints, as
> activities that generate several Entities can usually be divided into
> more specific Activities that only lead to one Entity. So Activities
> that generate several Entities could be modeled as a higher level
> resource that aggregates several activities. I know in this way you
> remove a term to introduce another one, but you get rid of the
> semantic overlapping and possible redundancy between wasAttributedTo
> and wasAssociatedWith.
>
> 3. The unqualified relation actedOnBehalfOf, since it is independent
> of the activity, it becomes a general or "atemporal" property of the
> agent and should be better named actsOnBehalfOf.
>
> Best regards,
> Jacobo Rouces.
>
>
>


-- 
--
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
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:34:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC