- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:14:25 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks. Fixing it. Luc On 28/06/12 16:19, Graham Klyne wrote: > Just for the process: > > at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html > > I'm still seeing: > > A specialization ◊ relation, written specializationOf(infra, supra, b) > in PROV-N, has: > [...] > > #g > -- > > On 28/06/2012 15:41, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> Thanks for summing up the situation. >> >> I have reverted specializationOf back to its original definition. >> >> I have introduced the concept Mention (as a proposed renaming for >> contextualization) >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention >> >> >> For reference, I have kept the text of contextualizationOf as it was >> at the time >> of F2F3. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 06/28/2012 03:34 PM, James Cheney wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It's become difficult for me to track what is going on in this >>> thread, so let >>> me try to summarize what I (think I) understand... >>> >>> >>>> I guess this topic has been beaten out of DM. >>>> >>>> So I'll press on in my applications with dcterms:isReferencedBy [ a >>>> prov:Bundle ] and not lose any sleep. >>>> >>>> -Tim >>> >>> It seems to me that we may have been talking at cross purposes by >>> conflating >>> two proposals: >>> >>> 1. what is in PROV-O (ctxOf = specializatioOf + inBundle) - which seems >>> totally innocent to me >>> >>> and >>> >>> 2. the much stronger-sounding ctxOf that was in the previous draft >>> of PROV-DM >>> (which talked about linking entities with respect to different >>> contexts, which >>> Graham points out opens a big can of worms) >>> >>> I understood the resolution to Graham's concerns about (2) at the WG >>> meeting >>> to just involve changing ctxOf to some mutually agreeable name, and >>> keeping >>> the section as is (marked "at risk") >>> >>> My earlier negative reaction was to changing from (2) to this: >>> >>> 3. overloading specializationOf to allow an optional bundle >>> parameter, which >>> (if I understand right) would be equivalent to saying >>> "specializationOf + >>> inBundle" in PROV-O. >>> >>> This was partly because of the change in meaning, but mostly because >>> it seemed >>> to exceed the scope of the renaming resolution, and at the same time >>> muddies >>> the waters about specializationOf. >>> >>> I don't object to keeping a 3-ary relation that corresponds to PROV-O's >>> specialization + inBundle pattern (as long as it is not an overload >>> of a name >>> already defined in the vocabulary). >>> >>> But, your suggestion of using another term from DC seems sensible as >>> a stopgap >>> (perhaps this suggestion could go into the DC mapping document too). >>> >>> --James >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> #g >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 19:48, Graham >>>>>> Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/06/2012 18:39, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Graham >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These are two different urls so they identify different things. >>>>>>> Not necessarily, There is no unique-name assumption in RDF. They >>>>>>> could denote >>>>>>> the same thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The fact that we add some properties like bundle or >>>>>>>> specializationof >>>>>>>> doesn't break anything. I can do that with any resource on the >>>>>>>> web, no? >>>>>>> Adding the properties per se doesn't break anything, but when >>>>>>> they are >>>>>>> presented >>>>>>> as addressing a use-case that I don't believe can be addressed >>>>>>> by RDF >>>>>>> semantics, >>>>>>> they run the risk of encouraging people to creating RDF data >>>>>>> that doesn't >>>>>>> mean >>>>>>> what they think it means when interp[reted in accordance with >>>>>>> RDF semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #g >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 19:09, Graham >>>>>>>> Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/06/2012 10:49, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At the face to face meeting, we have agreed to rename >>>>>>>>>> contextualization >>>>>>>>>> and mark >>>>>>>>>> this feature >>>>>>>>>> at risk. Tim, Stephan, Paul and I have worked a solution that >>>>>>>>>> we now >>>>>>>>>> share with >>>>>>>>>> the working group. >>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I still have a problem with this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Considering your bundle tool:analysis01: >>>>>>>>> [[ >>>>>>>>> bundle tool:analysis01 >>>>>>>>> agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, [perf:rating="good"]) >>>>>>>>> specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, ex:Bob, ex:run1) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, [perf:rating="bad"]) >>>>>>>>> specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, ex:Bob, ex:run2) >>>>>>>>> endBundle >>>>>>>>> ]] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is that, if subject to RDF semantics for URI >>>>>>>>> interpretation, >>>>>>>>> I can >>>>>>>>> see no semantic distinction is possible between >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tool:Bob-2011-11-16 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> tool:Bob-2011-11-17 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I.e. they are both specializations of ex:Bob, and that is all >>>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>>> know about >>>>>>>>> them, as (by the nature of the semantics of URI >>>>>>>>> interpretation) the >>>>>>>>> denotation >>>>>>>>> of ex:Bob that appears in ex:run1 is the same as the >>>>>>>>> denotation of >>>>>>>>> ex:Bob that >>>>>>>>> appears in ex:run2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do, however, have a different compromise that provides a >>>>>>>>> hook for >>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>> possible semantics later, or in private implementations, without >>>>>>>>> sneaking in >>>>>>>>> something that could well turn out to be incompatible with, or >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>> than, what the RDF group may do for semantics of datasets. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The hook is this: simply allow attributes for the >>>>>>>>> specializationOf >>>>>>>>> relation, but >>>>>>>>> don't define a specific attribute for bundle. This would allow >>>>>>>>> you to do a >>>>>>>>> private implementation of the scheme you describe, but would >>>>>>>>> not allow >>>>>>>>> it to be >>>>>>>>> mistaken for something that has standardized semantics. As in: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-17, ex:Bob, >>>>>>>>> [myprivateattribute:bundle=ex:run2]) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In case you think I'm jumping at shadows here, I'll note that >>>>>>>>> RDF has >>>>>>>>> been here >>>>>>>>> before. The original 1999 RDF specification described >>>>>>>>> reification without >>>>>>>>> formal semantics. Reification was intended to allow for >>>>>>>>> capturing this >>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>> information - i.e. to make assertions about context of use, >>>>>>>>> etc - a kind of >>>>>>>>> proto-provenance, if you like. But when the group came to >>>>>>>>> define a formal >>>>>>>>> semantics for RDF, there were two possible, reasonable and >>>>>>>>> semantically >>>>>>>>> incompatible approaches; looking at the way that reification >>>>>>>>> was being >>>>>>>>> used "in >>>>>>>>> the wild", it turned out that there was data out there that >>>>>>>>> corresponded >>>>>>>>> to both >>>>>>>>> of these (incompatible) approaches. This was in the very early >>>>>>>>> days of the >>>>>>>>> semantic web, so the harm done was quite limited. I think a >>>>>>>>> similar mistake >>>>>>>>> today would cause much greater harm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the appropriate way forward is to take this tool >>>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>>> analysis >>>>>>>>> use-case to the RDF-PROV coordination group, and ask that it be >>>>>>>>> considered as >>>>>>>>> input when defining semantics for RDF datasets. I would expect >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>> semantic structure they choose, it should be able to >>>>>>>>> accommodate the >>>>>>>>> use-case. >>>>>>>>> Then, we should be better placed to create an appropriate and >>>>>>>>> compatible >>>>>>>>> contextualization semantics for provenance bundles. But until >>>>>>>>> then, I >>>>>>>>> think we >>>>>>>>> invite problems by trying to create a standardized data model >>>>>>>>> structure >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> standardized RDF-compatible semantics to accommodate this >>>>>>>>> use-case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> #g >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tracker, this is ISSUE-385 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/06/2012 10:49, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At the face to face meeting, we have agreed to rename >>>>>>>>>> contextualization >>>>>>>>>> and mark >>>>>>>>>> this feature >>>>>>>>>> at risk. Tim, Stephan, Paul and I have worked a solution that >>>>>>>>>> we now >>>>>>>>>> share with >>>>>>>>>> the working group. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Given that contextualization was already defined as a kind of >>>>>>>>>> specialization, we >>>>>>>>>> now allow an optional >>>>>>>>>> bundle argument in the specialization relation. (Hence, no >>>>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>> create a new >>>>>>>>>> concept!) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See section 5.5.1 in the current Editor's draft >>>>>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-specialization >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Feedback welcome. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PS. Tracker, this is ISSUE-385 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 19:15:08 UTC