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