Inverse properties discussion

From Provenance WG Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Inverse properties discussion)
(→Inverse properties discussion)
Line 282: Line 282:
*Dani: Ok, It is not an activity involvement. Then why not activityOfInvolvement
*Dani: Ok, It is not an activity involvement. Then why not activityOfInvolvement
 +
*Stian: +1 activityOfInvolvement
|-
|-
Line 290: Line 291:
*Stian: same as prov:activity
*Stian: same as prov:activity
*Dani: what about agentOfInvolvement?
*Dani: what about agentOfInvolvement?
 +
*Stian: +1 agentOfInvolvement
|-
|-
Line 298: Line 300:
|prov:dictionary ||prov:dictionaryInvolvement||<strike>prov:dictionaryInvolvementOf</strike> prov:dictionaryOfInvolvement||*Dani: +1, but I suggest to add the "Of".
|prov:dictionary ||prov:dictionaryInvolvement||<strike>prov:dictionaryInvolvementOf</strike> prov:dictionaryOfInvolvement||*Dani: +1, but I suggest to add the "Of".
*Stian: same response as prov:agent
*Stian: same response as prov:agent
 +
*Stian: +1 dictionaryOfInvolvement
|-
|-
Line 303: Line 306:
|prov:entity ||prov:entityInvolvement||<strike>prov:entityInvolvement</strike>prov:entityOfInvolvement||Dani-Stian: same.
|prov:entity ||prov:entityInvolvement||<strike>prov:entityInvolvement</strike>prov:entityOfInvolvement||Dani-Stian: same.
 +
*Stian: +1 entityOfInvolvement
|-
|-
Line 390: Line 394:
-
|prov:member ||prov:inMembership||-||Dani: +1
+
|prov:pair ||prov:inMembership||-||Dani: +1
|-
|-
Line 422: Line 426:
|prov:hadPrimarySource ||prov:wasPrimarySourceOf|-||-
|prov:hadPrimarySource ||prov:wasPrimarySourceOf|-||-
 +
|-
 +
 +
|prov:pairValue ||prov:valueOf|-||Stian: +1 prov:valueOf
|-
|-
|}
|}

Revision as of 11:01, 11 June 2012

Inverse properties discussion

The latest inverses are listed at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/inverse-names.html


Prov:property Stian's name Proposed rename Comments


prov:atLocation prov:locationOf-Dani: +1
prov:alternateOf prov:alternateOf-Dani: +1
prov:specializationOf prov:generalizationOf-Dani: +1
prov:involved prov:wasInvolvedWith-Dani: +1 TL -1(no better proposal)
prov:tracedTo prov:tracedFrom -Dani: +1
prov:used prov:wasUsedBy-Dani: +1
prov:wasDerivedFrom prov:hadDerivation-Dani: +1
prov:hadOriginalSource prov:wasOriginalSourceOf-*Dani: +1: (why not just "originalSourceOf")?
  • Stian: To keep it as a verb in past tense. But perhaps this naming style is not so good in the inverse direction, which is pointing towards the future?
prov:wasQuotedFrom prov:wasQuotedByquotedAs*Dani: ->+0. Other relationships using "By" denote agency. I suggest to rename it wasQuotedIn.
  • Oh no, this is a sensitive one for us two! The range of the inverse will be the quote entity (the paragraph), so you can't say "bible quoted in" - there is nothing more to be inside.

What about prov:quotedAs  ?

  • Dani: +1 for quotedAs
  • Tim: quotedAs seems good.
  • Stian: +1 quotedAs
prov:wasRevisionOf prov:hadRevision-Dani: +1
prov:wasEndedBy prov:ended-Dani: +1
prov:wasGeneratedBy prov:generated-Dani: +1
prov:generated prov:wasGeneratedBy-Dani: +1
prov:wasInformedBy prov:informed-Dani: +1
prov:wasInvalidatedBy prov:invalidated-Dani: +1
prov:wasStartedBy prov:started -Dani: +1
prov:wasAssociatedWith prov:wasAssociateFor-Dani: +1
prov:wasAttributedTo prov:contributed-Dani: +1
prov:actedOnBehalfOf prov:responsibleFor(TL)prov:hadDelegateDani: +1 responsibleFor
  • Stian: +1 prov:hadDelegate (several in the office agreed on ":aBoss prov:hadDelegate :aSecretary" where the secretary could read the email for the boss)
prov:qualifiedAssociation prov:associatedActivityqualifiedAttributionOfDani: +0
prov:qualifiedAttribution prov:attributedEntity-Dani: +1
prov:qualifiedCommunication prov:informedActivityqualifiedCommunicationOfDani: -1. It is very similar to wasInformedBy. I think that something like "qualifiedCommunicationOf" is better
prov:qualifiedDerivation prov:derivedEntityqualifiedDerivationOfDani: +0
prov:qualifiedEnd prov:endedActivityqualifiedEndOfDani:I prefer qualifiedEndOf
prov:qualifiedGeneration prov:generatedEntityqualifiedGenerationOfDani: I suggest qualifiedGenerationOf. "generated" and "generatedEntity" could lead to confussion.
prov:qualifiedInsertion prov:insertedToDictionaryqualifiedQuotationOfDani: -1. It could be confused with wasQuotedBy. I suggest to rename it qualifiedQuotationOf.
prov:qualifiedQuotation prov:quotedByEntity-Dani: +1
prov:qualifiedRemoval prov:removedFromDictionaryqualifiedRemovalOfDani: +0. rename it to qualifiedRemovalOf
prov:qualifiedResponsibility prov:responsibleAgentqualifiedResponsabilityOfDani: +0 I suggest qualifiedResponsabilityOf
prov:qualifiedRevision prov:revisedEntityqualifiedRevisionOf Dani: +1 I suggest qualifiedRevisionOf (to keep the same pattern)
prov:qualifiedSource prov:sourcingEntityqualifiedSourceOfDani: +0 I suggest qualifiedSourceOf
prov:qualifiedStart prov:startedActivityqualifiedStartOfDani: +0. I prefer qualifiedStartOf. It can be confused with "wasStartedBy"
prov:qualifiedTrace prov:tracedEntityqualifiedTraceOfDani: +0. I suggest qualifiedTraceOf
prov:qualifiedUsage prov:consumingActivity cualifiedUsageOf*Dani: +0. I suggest cualifiedUsageOf.
  • Stian (also applicable for previous rows): I have no hard feelings about any of these. I removed the "qualified" prefix so that it would somewhat match up with the outgoing prov:activity/prov:entity/.... This will effectively point to the subject of the reified triple. I agree we should be consistent with the pattern. (My pattern was prov:.*(Activity|Entity|Agent) )

Just remember the direction. It will be for instance: 

:e2 prov:wasDerivedFrom :e1 ;
   prov:qualifiedDeriation :e2Deriv .

:e2Deriv a prov:Derivation ; 
   prov:entity :e1 ;
   prov:derivedEntity :e2 .


So "qualifiedDerivationOf" would read wrong to me - because it is :e1 we derive from, not :e2. I also struggled in that these need to be specific per involvement type to be proper inverses of the specific qualified*, so you can't say have a general prov:qualifyingEntity.

  • Dani: my concern is that derivedEntity could be confused with other properties like "derived" (although domain and range would be different).

I don't think that "qualifiedDerivationOf" is wrong, since it it the qualified Derivation for e2. I don't see that implying that e2 is the source of the derivation.

prov:involvee prov:involvement-Dani: +1
prov:activityprov:activityInvolvementactivityInvolvementOf activityOfInvolvement*Dani: +0.
  • Stian: no, not "of" - as whatever involvement will be the right hand side. The activity is not an activity-involvement of the involvement. 
:assoc1 a prov:Association ;
   prov:activity :a1 .b
:a1 prov:activityInvolvement :assoc1 .
  • Dani: Ok, It is not an activity involvement. Then why not activityOfInvolvement
  • Stian: +1 activityOfInvolvement
prov:agent prov:agentInvolvementprov:agentInvolvementOf prov:agentOfInvolvement*Dani: +0.
  • Stian: same as prov:activity
  • Dani: what about agentOfInvolvement?
  • Stian: +1 agentOfInvolvement
prov:dictionary prov:dictionaryInvolvementprov:dictionaryInvolvementOf prov:dictionaryOfInvolvement*Dani: +1, but I suggest to add the "Of".
  • Stian: same response as prov:agent
  • Stian: +1 dictionaryOfInvolvement
prov:entity prov:entityInvolvementprov:entityInvolvementprov:entityOfInvolvementDani-Stian: same.
  • Stian: +1 entityOfInvolvement
prov:hadActivity prov:wasActivityOfInvolvement-Dani: +1
prov:hadGeneration prov:generatedAsDerivationprov:generationByDerivation Stian: I see you did not vote on this - no wonder as it's a confusing property name! Any better suggestion? Remember it is the inverse pointing back to the prov:Derivation. 


:e2 prov:qualifiedDerivation :deriv .
:deriv a prov:Derivation ;
 prov:entity :e1 ;
 prov:hadGeneration :e2Gen .
:e2 prov:qualifiedGeneration :e2Gen .
:e2Gen a prov:Generation ;
 prov:generatedAsDerivation :deriv .
  • Dani: I have no better suggestion :(
  • Stian: Propose prov:generationByDerivation
prov:hadPlan prov:wasPlanForwasPlanOf*Dani: +1. *Stian:Yes, wasPlanOf is probably better, as the range will be to some Involvement
prov:hadRole prov:wasRoleIn-Dani: +1
prov:hadUsage prov:wasUsedInDerivationprov:usageOfDerivation*Dani: +1: Why not "usedInDerivation"?
  • Stian:This is the equivalent of prov:generatedAsDerivation above. I think I added 'was' to clarify the direction - the Usage did not "use". However you can argue the Generation did not "generate" either - so they 


:e2 prov:qualifiedDerivation :deriv .
:deriv a prov:Derivation ;
 prov:entity :e1 ;
 prov:hadUsage :e1Usage .
:e1Usage a prov:Usage ;
 prov:entity :e1 ;
 prov:wasUsedInDerivation :deriv .


It is also a bit strange as to me it reads like :deriv is a prov:Activity rather than just some details about the derivation. But the real activity is just implied here.

  • Stian: Propose prov:usageOfDerivation instead to avoid the above problem. (But does this read like a derivation was used??)
prov:inserted prov:wasInsertedBy-Dani: +1
prov:derivedByInsertionFrom prov:hadDerivationByInsertion-Dani: +1
prov:derivedByRemovalFrom prov:hadDerivationByRemoval-Dani: +1
prov:pair prov:inMembership-Dani: +1
prov:membership prov:membershipOf-Dani: +1
prov:hadMember -prov:wasMemberOf
prov:hasAnchor -prov:anchorOfStian: No domain/range?
prov:hasProvenance -prov:provenanceOfStian: No domain/range?
prov:hasProvenanceService -prov:provenanceServiceOfStian: No domain/range?
prov:hadPrimarySource --
prov:pairValue -Stian: +1 prov:valueOf
Retrieved from "http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Inverse_properties_discussion"
Personal tools