W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

RE: PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:09:04 +0100
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FE37361E55FDC343A27E119DFB7785BB40B542CCA1@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>
Hello PROV-O team,

The PROV-O document is good, reads well and is well structured. Section 4 especially will be a handy reference, and contains the key information succinctly. I have no reason to block the document's release.

Most of my comments are minor and about presentation. I highlight those about content with a *.

Section 1:
The 2nd paragraph says that the document uses the example scenario from the primer, while the 7th paragraph says it uses the example from PROV-DM. I think the former is closer to the truth.

The 6th paragraph refers to "Classes and Properties", but this capitalisation is not used before or after.

7th paragraph: "creation of crime statistics file" -> "creation of a crime statistics file"

Section 2:
4th paragraph: "While those relations are..., these terms are..." It is unclear what "those" and "these" refer to.
Section 3.1:

The definition of Entity now needs updating to match the current DM following recent discussions, I think.

* 3rd paragraph: "derivation, which is used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity." This doesn't seem to match the DM definition or my intuition. Why does the earlier entity need to be consumed? Why is it only the creation/existence that it is influenced and not the attributes/content/nature?

While I understand the example is not meant to exactly match the primer's, you might want to update it to match the current primer in a couple of regards. Stian suggested that "Chart Generators" should be "Chart Generators Inc" to avoid it sounding like an activity. Also, the primer now uses the less verb/noun-ambiguous "compose" rather than "aggregate".

Section 3.2:
1st paragraph: "to describe address" -> "to describe the address"

Section 3.3:
* I note that PROV-O has a Plan class, but PROV-N has no equivalent (I'll make the same remark in my review of PROV-N). This may be fine, but readers may find it odd and translation between the formats might easily miss declaring something to be a Plan.

* Why is "Responsibility" the qualified name for actedOnBehalfOf and not wasAssociatedWith, when the latter defines responsibility and the former only defines delegation?

* Why is there a discrepancy between the names of wasInformedBy and Communication? It isn't so important, but will make RDF containing both qualified and unqualified relations harder to interpret without matching names.

Section 3.4:
* Why does prov:key have range Literal? If my collection is a webpage and I want to refer to an element which is a logo image in the top-right corner, then I'd prefer to use a structure of RDF statements to describe that position. Requiring a literal seems a little limiting.

Penultimate paragraph: ":c2, which content" -> ":c2, whose content"

Section 4:
* Why do most terms include definitions, but some do not? It would be good to check for consistency.

Update definition of Entity following recent discussions.

* Location is defined such that it "can also be a non-geographical place such as a directory, row or column". This sounds like it directly relates to collection keys and the text at the start of Section 3.4, but no connection is made explicitly.

* Shouldn't wasRevisionOf have super-property alterateOf (as well as wasDerivedFrom)? Isn't part of its meaning that it is the both domain and range of wasRevisionOf are revisions of a common thing?

Answers to questions:

Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the OWL design elements?
 = Yes.
Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM complement each other, or is it distracting?
 = Seemed fine to me. Each should be structured to best convey what they need to.
Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
 = I personally liked the brevity but, as mentioned above, all terms should include their definitions.
Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
 = As emailed, I was not clear which OWL file to look at
Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
 = Definitely

Thanks,
Simon



Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Requirements for Provenance on the Web:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1399/
________________________________________
From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
Sent: 02 April 2012 21:04
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]

PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336

Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: Ontology

Luc, Paul, Simon, Sam, and MacTed,

You and the rest of the working group are welcome to review and provide feedback for the internal 2WD draft located at:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/spwd/for-internal-wg-review/prov-o.html



Per http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.29#PROV-O
please consider the following questions in your feedback:

Questions to be reviewed for:

* Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the OWL design elements?
* Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM complement each other, or is it distracting?
* Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
* Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
* Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
* Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:14:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT