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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:47:34 +0000
Message-Id: <9B1D9FB7-82CC-4C8F-AFBA-7A925637BA8C@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Since there was no objection I have closed this issue.

--James

On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:44 PM, James Cheney wrote:

> This issue concerning comments about prov-o before its FPWD was raised (inadvertently?) against the formal semantics, not the ontology.
> 
> Is it still open?  If so, I would like to re-assign it to prov-o.  
> 
> If the PROV-O comments have been addressed but there are remaining issues relevant to prov-sem then I would like to close this and create new issues for them.  
> 
> If there is no further discussion by next week's teleconference then I will close it.
> 
> --James
> 
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
>> 
>> PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/155
>> 
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: Formal Semantics
>> 
>> 
>> - Abstract:
>> " The PROV ontology is specialized to create domain-specific
>> provenance ontologies that model the provenance information specific
>> to different applications"
>> Well, the charter says that the focus is on inter-changing provenance
>> information, and we will be application agnostic. It's therefore surprising
>> that this statement and associated section is part of the normative specification.
>> 
>> Note that similar comments were already raised in ISSUE-117
>> 
>> - Abstract:
>> "The PROV ontology supports a set of entailments based on OWL2 formal
>> semantics and provenance specific inference rules. "
>> There was a request to be precise about the lightweight nature of this
>> ontology. 
>> 
>> -Needs a status of this document (SOTD)
>> 
>> - 1.Introduction
>> "This ontology specification provides the foundation for implementation of provenance applications in different domains using the PROV ontology for representing, exchanging, and integrating provenance information. "
>> I believe we should only focus on exchanging provenance information. Our message is not about
>> how application should implement provenance.
>> 
>> "this document forms a framework for provenance information interchange AND MANAGEMENT " -> drop management
>> 
>> "Thus, the PROV ontology is expected to be both directly usable in applications as WELL AS SERVE AS A REFERENCE MODEL FOR CREATION OF DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PROVENANCE ONTOLOGY "
>> -> this seems to go against the spirit of the charter
>> 
>> - 1.1
>> "This document is intended for provide an understanding of the PROV ontology and how IT CAN BE USED BY DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS TO REPRESENT THEIR PROVENANCE INFORMATION."  -> again, against the charter spirit. 
>> We should just restrict ourselves to exchange.
>> 
>> - "... to facilitate standardization. " What do you mean?
>> 
>> - 2.1
>> "he PROV Data Model [PROV-DM] uses an Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN) to describe the set of provenance terms that are used to construct the PROV ontology. There are a number of differences between the PROV-DM ASN and th"
>> The prov-o document should not refer to prov-asn, but only prov-dm.
>> 
>> - " the notion of "EXPRESSIONS" used in the  "
>> replace expression by record
>> 
>> - " PROV-DM discusses the use of "Qualifier" to as  "
>> it no longer does!, just attributes.
>> 
>> - What is the purpose of the note: "In addition, RDF is strictly monotonic and "...it cannot express closed-world assumptions, local default preferences, and several other commonly used non-monotonic constructs."[RDF-MT], but the PROV-DM seems to introduce the notion of non-monotonic assertions through "Account" construct [PROV-DM]. For example, Account description in PROV-DM states that it "It provides a scoping mechanism for expression identifiers and for some contraints (such as generation-unicity and derivation-use)."
>> If accounts are to be mapped to named graphs, is prov-dm taking different assumptions than rdf?
>> 
>> - 3.1.1: "An Entity REPRESENTS AN identifiable characterized thing"
>> -> An Entity IS an identifiable characterized thing
>> 
>> - The text still contains variables/names "pe" to denote activities
>> 
>> - 3.1.5:  ProvenanceContainer has become RecordContainer
>> 
>> - "According to the definitions of ProvenanceContainer and Account, both contain a set of provenance assertions and have an identifier. Hence, ProvenanceContainer class can also be used to create instances of accounts."
>> I was not necessarily expecting a RecordContainer/ProvenanceContainer to be modelled as a class.
>> The record container contains prefix-namespace mapping, which in 
>>    - rdf  is typically contained in the RDF element
>>    - xml could be declared in the root document 
>> 
>> Accounts do not have prefix/namespace declarations. So it's strange to see that the same class is used.
>> 
>> - issue-81 is closed pending review, why is it mentioned?
>> 
>> - 3.1.6: the crime file example does not have location. It was
>> incorrect of prov-dm to use the attribute location, it is instead
>> path.
>> 
>> - 3.1.7.1 Usage
>> 
>> "The Usage class represents an n-ary property to capture qualifying
>> information related to the the use, GENERATION, CONTROL, AND
>> PARTICIPATION" ?????.
>> 
>> 
>> - 3.2.1: "The wasGeneratedBy property links the Entity class with the Activity class."
>> What does it express? That there exists at least one instance of a qualified generation between
>> an entity and an activity, though this instance may not have been asserted.
>> If is permitted for multiple of these instances (for an entity-activity pair) to exist.
>> 
>> - 3.2.3: issue 42 is closed
>> 
>> - 3.2.3 why cite issue 43? 
>>  The only reason to cite it, is that you may want to say that a qualified derivation may need
>>  to be introduced if time is to be introduced.  Otherwise, don't cite.
>> 
>> - 3.2.4
>> why cite issue-122, 125 and 126? they are closed pending review
>> 
>> - 3.2.4:
>> prov-dm is in the process of changing the names
>> 
>> 
>> - 3.2.7: "The hadPariticipant property links Entity class to Activity class, where Entity used or wasGeneratedBy Activity." this does not correspond to the definition.
>> Note, term to be deprecated.
>> 
>> 
>> - 3.2.8: what's the purpose of the note? this does not make sense according to prov-dm.
>> 
>> - 3.2.9 wasControlledBy: whole terminology to be changed according to Yolanda's proposal.
>> 
>> - 3.2.15: wasQuoteOf
>>   range should be entity (really, it's entity and optionally agent)
>> 
>> -3.2.xxx  hasQualifiedXXX
>>   do we really need to make the term qualified explicit
>> 
>> -3.3: Note, how can you say that an agent can be a PE, when entity and activity are supposed to be disjoint.
>> 
>> - Section 4, should only be informative. It should not be normative.
>> Paul and I recommends that this section is moved into a separate document: best practice.
>> 
>> - Lots of comments with section 5.
>> Fundamentally, it is not clear what it is trying to achieve, since most constraints don't really seem
>>  to be addressed, or are no longer part of prov-dm.
>> Paul and I recommends that this section is moved into a separate document too.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 09:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC