Re: Changes to prov:Dictionary

Hi all,

I dont understand this discussion.

See example 50
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#example_50
We explicit list the contents of a dictionary after some insertion.

Definition 38 in prov-constraints define membership
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#membership-as-insertion

Disallowing complete membership seems to go against the definition of insertion.
Are you suggesting that we don't exactly know what is being inserted in a dictionary?



Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 6 Jun 2012, at 17:05, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:


On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

Stian,

On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

Without EmptyCollection or CompleteMembership the
collections/dictionaries are of almost no worth to my use cases,

EmptyCollection remains in the latest PROV-O (so that is not an issue).

It was CompleteMembership that got the ax (this is the topic at hand).

Regarding your use cases, I think it's important to cite Graham's points about uses cases for standards:
http://www.w3.org/mid/4FCEFCB0.4090100@zoo.ox.ac.uk

+1 to the relevance of Graham's point about scope creep and system use cases vs. coverage/scope of a standard.




as
all I can say then is that "some of the members are X, Y and Z" - but
there might also be A, B and C.

Are you specifically worried about the possibility that other members may be asserted at a later time by someone else?  If this is an issue than perhaps you could use a system-specific extension of prov:Collection which utilizes a terminated ordered list.

I must reiterate my agreement with Graham's point above that this need from this use case should not become a requirement for all collections defined in the standard.

In Taverna workflows, all collections
are closed (unless you export provenance before a workflow has
finished). It is important to know that ALL these genes - and no other
genes - came back. Just saying "some of these came back" is of less
value.

Would this use case be handled if Taverna instead leveraged the "additional attributes" that DM already provides?

memberOf(id; c, {(key_1, e_1), ..., (key_n, e_n)}, cplt, attrs)

perhaps a property taverna:isComplete or class taverna:CompleteDictionary ?

Even if this attribute was added to the prov or an extension of prov, it does not enforce the closed-world membership that Stian would like to have.

No attribute or class specialization will resolve the issue of trying to enforce CWA in RDF.




I understand that in RDF if we don't use rdf:List, then statements of
such completeness are still fairly vague as the lists are not
terminated and additional tuples could be adding
members/insertions/removals.

If this can't be handled soundly and properly in PROV-O and OWA, then I don't think we should try (or, fake it).

+1

I think in general the idea of 'completeness' is incompatible with OWA and should not be addressed in PROV-O.

--Stephan



However when I make a provenance export of a workflow run, I would
want to also say something like "These are all the workflow processes
that ran, and these are all the entities that were created".



But
perhaps a more general completeness-claim for an account/bundle is out
of scope for PROV.

That seems to be the predominant perspective, as people have indicated in various email threads and tracker issues.
With the use of a custom attribute and type ( taverna:isComplete or class taverna:CompleteDictionary ), can you accept removing the special optional parameter on DM's memberOf?



However, I still don't undertstand what is the problem with saying
something is an empty collection.

Not an issue. EmptyDictionary is still in there :-)

Thanks!
Tim


On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Hi Tim,

It's specifically your last point. Being to express whether membership was complete
was a request from Stian and Paolo I believe.

Luc


On 06/06/2012 02:31 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

Luc,

On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:



On 5 Jun 2012, at 23:18, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

prov-wg (and prov-dm editors),

I've reviewed all of the materials (that I can find) regarding collective concerns about prov:Dictionary, and
have committed changes to the latest PROV-O owl and html to address those concerns:

* https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html
* http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

The changes are summarized here:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership&oldid=7905#PROV-O_changes_made.2C_inspired_by_this_example

and repeated here:

 Added class prov:Collection, as subclass of Entity
Added property prov:hadMember domain prov:Collection range prov:Entity.

This supports both generic "simple set" prov:Collection and prov:Dictionary.

Made KeyValuePair a subclass of Entity

this follows from Set Collection :c prov:hadMember :my_member and the definition of Collection "A collection is an entity that has some members. The members are themselves entities").

Renamed prov:membership to prov:qualifiedMembership to follow qualification pattern naming.
prov:Membership became subclass of prov:EntityInvolvement (though, it could become subclass of prov:KeyValuePairInvolvement, itself a subclass of prov:EntityInvolvement. But we'll try to simplify and reuse prov:entity)
prov:member renamed to prov:pair and became a subproperty of prov:involvee
Added property chain (qualifiedMembership o prov:pair) rdfs:subClassOf prov:hadMember
Added prov:removed domain prov:Removal range prov:KeyValuePair
Removed prov:CompleteDictionary from DM and PROV-O.

Why?
Luc



What in particular would you like to discuss.
As I said, this reflects a response to many concerns that have been raised by many people in many forms.
In an effort to maintain focus and to make progress, I recommend that these points, the latest prov-dm, and the latest prov-o update serve as the basis for these discussions.

-Tim







You'll notice the prov-o modeling of Dictionaries is not consistent with latest prov-dm.

The prov-o team would like to ask the prov-dm editors to reconsider how collections and dictionaries are defined, so that they reflect the latest prov-o modeling of the PROV concepts.

Regards,
Tim Lebo





cc tracker ISSUE-374 ISSUE-391



--
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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm




--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester