- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:02:59 +0000
- To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|377c621f42c402ed2a5fad687409c197p2OE3108l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|51505913>
On 03/25/2013 01:52 PM, Tom De Nies wrote: > 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) ... and prov-o too, which has the same definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Influence Luc > > - 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 > <mailto: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 >> <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 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax:+44 23 8059 2865 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > -- 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 14:03:26 UTC