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: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:07:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbeDOdD6hYHgJWc-0yU9swApUy0fPEHZVwKjvEZQ3vsR+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Seems like this opens a can of worms we want to keep closed.
I suggest leaving things as they are.

Issue marked pending review.

Tom


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

>
> 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>
>
>>  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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 Thursday, 28 March 2013 15:08:04 UTC

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