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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of prov:entity? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:43:42 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2e908c8089fabdae0686c926fd709658p2ODhi08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5150548E.5010501@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

The group voted (back in SB) against membership being an influence.

prov-dm defines influence as follows:

Influence ? is the capacity of an entity, activity, or agent to have an 
effect on the character, development, or behavior of another by means of 
usage, start, end, generation, invalidation, communication, derivation, 
attribution, association, or delegation.

I don't understand how we can make prov:KeyValuePair 
a subclass of prov:EntityInfluence 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence> without
going against that vote and the definition.


On 03/25/2013 12:42 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Tom,
> Apologies for rocking the boat with my off-list comment.
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be 
> <mailto:tom.denies@ugent.be>> wrote:
>> Luc raised some concerns about making prov:pairValue a sub-property 
>> of prov:entity in yesterday's telecon.
>> If we decide to make prov:pairValue 
>> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#pairValue> 
>> a sub-property of prov:entity 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#p_entity>, that would 
>> imply that prov:pairValue now has the domain prov:EntityInfluence 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence>.
> This makes sense from the qualification perspective, since the 
> KeyValuePair is adding the detail of some "key" for some existing 
> prov:hadMember Entity "value".
> The Entity :bar existed just fine on its own, then when some 
> Dictionary decided to come along and shove it into some "key bin" 
> called "foo", the KeyValuePair is the (membership) qualification for 
> how the Entity :bar influenced the Dictionary (and also includes the 
> key used: "foo").
>> Would this mean that we have to make prov:KeyValuePair 
>> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#KeyValuePair> 
>> a subclass of prov:EntityInfluence 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence> as well?
> Yup.
>> This seems weird and counter-intuitive to me.
> When starting with Entity :bar and wanting to move to a KeyValuePair 
> to place it into "key bin foo", then yes, it can seem *un*intuitive 
> (though, not sure about *counter* intuitive).
> But, when you make a KeyValuePair, you're implying some Dictionary -- 
> and you've influenced that Dictionary by placing a new Entity into it.
> The Entity influenced the Dictionary by becoming its member, with the 
> additional detail of the key.
> ^^ EntityInfluence, Dictionary, prov:hadMember, KeyValuePair
>> It would imply that a dictionary would have some influence on all its 
>> members.
> Other way around. The Entities placed into the Dictionary influenced 
> the Dictionary.
> -Tim
>> Tim, could you share your views on this?
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>> 2013/3/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker 
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>
>>     PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of
>>     prov:entity? [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647
>>     Raised by: Tom De Nies
>>     On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>>     Came up in an off-list conversation with Tim about the PROV-O of
>>     dictionaries. It appears to be useful to make prov:pairValue a
>>     subproperty of prov:entity. This way applications could use
>>     spec-level constructs to "accidentally" "understand" part of the
>>     "brand new construct".
>>     Nice phrasing of the rationale by Tim:
>>     "Having prov:pairValue is a very nice subproperty for these
>>     uninterested in the alignment with qualifications, but still
>>     provides those that do care about qualifications a treat."
>>     I see no real problems with adding this for the next release. Is
>>     this acceptable to the group or did we miss some consequences?

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, 25 March 2013 13:44:12 UTC

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