Re: ISSUE-385: hasProvenanceIn: finding a solution

Overall, looks pretty good.




"sharing the facets"
->
perhaps use "presenting aspects" as with the accepted phrasing from the last round of alt/spec definitions?


BTW, you still have a missing 0 in:
2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:0:00



"A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a restriction of ex:Bob"
-> ?
"A new agent tool:Bob1 is declared as a specialization of ex:Bob"



"defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with associated rating"
-> (nit)
"defines two specializations of these contextualized agents with an associated rating"


"bade" -> "bad"



I'm finally comfortable with your modeling of the visualization scenario.


-Tim



On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> I tried to write this up as a separate relation contextualizationOf, see section 1.3 in [1].
> I believe this relation is compatible with your rdf encoding. The only difference, here,
> is that we make this an identifiable thing.
> 
>        [  
>            a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
>            prov:identifier       ex:Bob;  
>            prov:inContext     ex:run2;   
>        ];
> 
> What do you think?
> Luc
> 
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
> 
> On 04/06/2012 23:25, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> 
>> Luc,
>> 
>> (bottom)
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> 
>>> Some comments/questions below.
>>> 
>>> On 04/06/2012 13:46, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Luc,
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:16 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> During this diamond jubilee WE, I had the opportunity to think about Tim and Simon's long emails.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with them that we have concepts of alternate and specialisation, and we want to reuse them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also came to the conclusion that behind the hasProvenanceIn relation, what I really wanted was a form of alternate. But not what Tim or Simon are suggesting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PROV data model has a shortcoming: the inability to identify something in some context. That's what I am trying to address here.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> …
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The interpretation of 
>>>>>        alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
>>>>> is that tool:Bob2 is the entity that share aspects of ex:bob as described by ex:run2. Conceptually, this could be done by substituting ex:Bob for tool:Bob2 in ex:run2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I appreciate that what I am describing here is not too distant from http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215/#record-complement-of, which had optional account, and was not received with enthusiasm, to say the least.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Coincidentally, Paul shared this paper 
>>>>> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-614/owled2010_submission_29.pdf which introduces  rules of the kind
>>>>> X counts as Y in context C
>>>>> which bears some resemblance with what I am trying to argue for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, my proposal is;
>>>>> - drop hasProvenanceIn
>>>>> - drop isTopicIn
>>>>> - allow for the ternary form of alternate
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tim and Simon approach by using two binary relations do not offer the same level of expressivity.  
>>>>> The also have a technological bias, as well: they require querying/reasoning facility.  Therefore,
>>>>> their suggestion is not suitable for a data model supposed to be technology neutral.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A stab at:
>>>> 
>>>> bundle tool:analysis01
>>>>      alternate(tool:Bob2, ex:Bob,ex:run2)
>>>> endBundle
>>>> 
>>>> in PROV-O:
>>>> 
>>>> tool:analysis01 {
>>>>     tool:Bob2 
>>>>        prov:alternateOf [  ## The use here of bnode is, for once, actually appropriate :-)
>>>>            a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;
>>>>            prov:identifier       ex:Bob;   ## The identifier that is used "over there"   Can't use dcterms:identifier b/c that is a rdfs:Literal.
>>>>            prov:inContext     ex:run2;   ## "over there"       Could prov:atLocation be reused?
>>>>        ];
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this, Tim.
>>> 
>>> First some questions:
>>> - why a bnode here?
>> 
>> bnodes are read "the thing that" and _can_ serve as an existential.
>> 
>>> - Can you explain the  dcterms:identifier comment?  
>> 
>> 1) The value is the identifier used in the other bundle.
>> 2) The rdfs:range of dcterms:identifier is a literal "http://foo.com", but it is more useful if it is a rdfs:Resource <http://foo.com>. With the former, we know that we can "try to go there" to dereference the URI.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Now, assuming that this rdf encoding expresses what was originally suggested, some further questions:
>>> - have we got indeed a ternary alternateOf relation in prov-dm as I suggested?
>> 
>> Perhaps. The original binary that we now know and love, and a second ternary that "wraps" a URI and a Bundle (that mentions the URI).
>> The only new things would be:
>> 
>> 1) The two new predicates prov:identifier and prov:inContext (perhaps that should just be called prov:inBundle -- I was swayed too far towards DCTerms when I chose that this morning).
>> 2) The new rule to unwrap your ternary DM into this RDF structure.
>> 
>> 
>>> - or have we got some form of ternary relation isContextualizationOf(e2,e1,bundle)?
>> 
>> Or, just a binary isContextualized(e1,bundle)?
>> 
>> And we just stack on an existing alternateOf(e2,e1)...
>> 
>> 
>> BTW, not really sure where we're going with this.
>> It feels like we're close to wrapping this up, but worried that we're in some odd local minima.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>