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

That is a problem...

So I guess this is an "all or nothing" situation, where we either leave
things as they are, or add the inheritance and disturb the DM in some way.
(by violating the influence definition or adding something to the domain of
EntityInfluence)

- Tom

P.S.: @Tim: no problem at all, at the contrary! I'd rather have you rocking
the boat at this stage than an external reviewer after the final review
round.

2013/3/25 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>  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<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>without
> going against that vote and the definition.
>
> Luc
>
>
> 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> 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>
>
>> 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
>
>