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

Re: PROV-O ready for internal WG review - due 9 April.

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:47:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm5e7r2V+pHnozqf36FQPYS9v_7650bPF14Bt-BTHogXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
This is ISSUE-336

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 13:59, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 13:39, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> 11. Section 3.3:
>>     choice of name: you have prov:qualifiedUsage, etc
>>                     why not simply prov:usage?
>
> So that these properties follow the same pattern.
> :q :x :i .
> # qualified as:
> :q prov:qualifiedX :i .
> :i a prov:Involvement;
>  prov:entity :e
>  # or
>  prov:activity :a
>
>
>
>> 16. Generally speaking, it's quite advanced to see an example on collections
>> so early.  It seems to give importance to this kind of concept that does not reflect
>> its real importance. It's also one of the most speculative bit in the model.
>
> Perhaps we can move this around a bit within the document. As the
> collections is a bit complex model, I felt it was easier to explain
> with examples than explaining every property in detail. Kind of like a
> picture is worth a 1000 words.
>
>
>
>> 21. traceTo is supposed to link to and from Agents, but they are not listed
>> in domain/range.
>
> prov:tracedTo has domain/range entity, just like in DM?
>
>> Traceability, written tracedTo(id,e2,e1,attrs) in PROV-N, contains:
>> id: an optional identifier identifying the relation;
>> entity: an identifier (e2) for an entity;
>> ancestor: an identifier (e1) for an ancestor entity that the former depends on;
>> attributes: an optional set (attrs) of attribute-value pairs to further describe properties of the relation.
>
>
>
>> 23 prov:Source.  Do we need to introduce a class for this? Why not just use
>> Entity?
>
> It's a name that needs to change as source is both a noun and verb.
> It's not the source entity. It's the qualified sourcing/sourced event
> - from qualifiedSource / hadOriginalSource. It's prov:entity on the
> prov:Source that is the real.. eh.. source.
>
> Perhaps an example would help here as well.
>
> :e2 prov:hadOriginalSource :e1 ;
>    prov:qualifiedSource :sourcing .
>
> :sourcing a prov:Source ;
>    prov:entity :e1 ;
>    :attr1 :value1 .
>
> (It's there in prov:Source - but it's not formatted as an example)
>
>
>
>> 24  prov:agent, prov:entity, prov:activity must be made functional
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 08:48:11 GMT

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