- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:02:54 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi prov-o team, It seems there is another non-alignment between prov-o and prov-dm. Isn't there a prov:EmptyCollection class in the ontology? Luc On 07/04/2012 03:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi prov-o team, again, > > Find below some specific comments about the provo document. > > > Thanks for the extensive work! > It needs some polishing, but the majority of it, can happen after LC. > > Answer to your questions: > > 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O > as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done). > > - Minor Issues in the ontology raised in my previous message > - Definition alignment, and make sure that example don't use > constructs incorrectly (e..g hadRole) > > 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate? > > - Yes, though I couldn't follow the scenario anymore without a > picture. Can a picture be added, with the style adopted by other > documents > > 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in > the cross reference? > > - See comment below. > > > > Specific comments: > > Section 1 > - owl-rl -> orl-rl ++ > - para 3: provdm introduces a MINIMAL set of concepts ... delete MINIMAL > - "... which facilitate a fixed interpretation and use of the prov > data model concepts based on the formal semantics of owl2: " delete > - reference to xml-schema should be to xml-schema11 (owl2 > automatically switched to xml-schema11) > > section 2: > - "the terms in this category ARE APPLIED IN the same way ..." not > sure what this mean. > > section 3.1: > - "the starting point category is a small COLLECTION ..." to avoid > confusion, use SET instead. > > - definitions entity/activity/etc need updating > > - "In this case, the Agent that influenced an Activity or Entity > prov:actedOnBehalfOf another Agent that MAY HAVE HAD LESS INFLUENCE, > but still bears some responsibility for the resulting Activity or > Entity." I am not sure we should say this at all. The agent may or > may not have had more or less influence. > > > - http://example.org# -> http://example.org/# ? everywhere > > - example after fig 1: it would be nice to see a "prov-style" picture > > - example 2 (agent derek) ... it was suggested for prov-dm that > examples should be described in past tense. It should be done here > too. > > - i don't understand wy ex:post9821v1 is a specialization of ex:post9821, > I can see it's an alternate. (in example code and in text) > > - inmediately->immediately > > - "Since the provenance produced by the activities of Derek and Monica > correspond to different user views, the system automatically publish > it in different prov:Bundles (ex:bundlePost and ex:bundlePost1)." I > don't understand. It is part of the scenario? or is part of prov? > > > - I am lost in the example without a picture > > - Suggestion: number examples > > - an example still has prov:hasAnnotation > > - "and all the data related to the post is lost. " permanently? > > - example: bundles have not been used, so what is their point? > > - figure 3: can we keep the conventions used elsewhere: agent is > represented by pentagon. > > - comments in some of the example (e.g. qualified usage) go beyond the > box, into the margin > > - cross referencing, I am not against it, I am concern about the > additional space it takes. > Can it be folded in the title section? > It's probably too early at this stage to link to constraints, though > this would be valuable once the prov-constraints document is stable. > > - examples: dererk -> dereck > > - examples: to save space, can we define all prefixes upfront and > avoid repeating them > > - prov:wasDerivedFrom contains definition of entity, and not of > derivation > > - prov:Bundle: the text talks about account > > - prov:Bundle: maybe should state the purpose: provenance of provenance > > - prov:alternateOf: contains definition of software agent > > - <> prov:wasDerivedFrom < .... dm ...> : > I guess it's always good to eat our own dog food, but I think this > complicates > the examples. > > - prov:invalidatedAtTime the painter seem to be destroyed in 2012??? > > - prov:mentionOf/specializationOf: have software agent as definition. > > - prov:value: "The main value ... of a STRUCTURED value." > What is structured, here? > > - prov:wasInvalidatedBy example: > Is it right to say swissair_flight_111_crash prov:used <http//db.... > swissair_flight_111>? > > - prov:Influence and its subclasses: can they be used alone without a > concrete influence? > Shouldn't the text say something and RECOMMEND the use of subclasses? > > - prov:Communication is not allowed in the domain of atLocation (see > example for prov:Communication) > > - typo: prov:Actvity in example with policySale > > - Delegation is not in the domain of hadRole (see insuranceAgent_Frank) > > - example of derivation goes into margin > > - EntityInvolvment: comments that appear in the example should be > given in the narrative. > > - Quotation no longer has hadQuoter and hadQuoted in prov-dm > > - prov:Revision, the binary wasAttributedTo is incorrectly qualified > by an Association > instead of Attribution > > - example for prov:hadGeneration > has a qulaifiedDerivation, > dont' you need to specifiy influencer entity? > > - no role allowed in attribution > > :nationalRegionsList > a prov:Entity; > prov:qualifedAttribution [ > a prov:Attribution; > prov:agent :civil_action_group; > prov:hadRole :owner; > ] > . > > > > - no role in delegation > > :chauffeur > a prov:Person; > prov:actedOnBehalfOf :celebrity-in-car; > prov:qualifiedDelegation [ > a prov:Delegation; > prov:agent :celebrity-in-car; > prov:hadRole :employer; # The celebrity employed the chauffeur > during the enforcement. > ]; > . > > - prov:qualifiedDerivation > :bar_chart > prov:wasDerivedFrom :aggregatedByRegions; > prov:qualifiedDerivation [ > a prov:Derivation; > prov:hadGeneration :illustration; > ]; > . > > Shouldn't you link to :aggregatedByRegions;? > > - qualifiedInvalidation: check time of crash > > - prov:qualifiedQuotation uses quoter/quotedAgent > > > - qualified source > :temperatureDisplay > a prov:Entity; > prov:hadOriginalSource :sensorReading20120510; > prov:qualifiedSource [ > a prov:Source; > prov:entity :sensorReading20120510; > ]; > . > > Isn't there a RECOMMENDation to use the qualified pattern only if it > adds new information? > It does not do it here. > > > - qualified usage > > :newsPublication > a prov:Activity; > prov:used :tsunami_image; > prov:qualifiedUsage [ > a prov:Usage; > :hasCopyrightPermission :licensedUse; > :hasOwner :reuters; > ]; > > Need to add prov:influencer tsunami_image > > > - > > prov:ProvenanceService > prov:hasAnchor prov:hasProvenance prov:hasProvenanceService > prov:provenanceUriTemplate > Should not be described in the html document, but in the paq document. > > > - appendix > # Instead of defining their own, modelers should use the > # recommended inverse local name within the PROV namespace: > > This is confusing. So, it would be better to say that they are defined > in prov namespace > though not defined in prov-o.html ( a bit like paq stuff). It would be > informative. > > - OWL2 primer should be normative reference > > > > > On 04/07/2012 10:26, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi prov-o team, >> >> Thanks for producing the document. Here are a few comments on the >> ontology, before I start reading >> the html document. >> >> I think you removed too many of the property characteristics, some of >> which are prov-o specific >> (as opposed to being prov-constraints specific). >> >> Otherwise, I think the ontology is aligned with prov-dm. I think >> that Influence and influencer are >> quite nice! >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> 1. hadRole: why is domain defined as intersection of Influence and >> six of its subclasses. >> Why not the subclasses directly? >> >> >> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional? >> Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a >> qualified Influence >> for multiple subjects. This is not intended. >> >> The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional >> before, but I think >> this characteristic was incorrectly removed. >> >> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per >> qualified pattern instance, isn't there. >> >> 4. Likewise: >> hadPlan: is functional >> hadUsage: is functional >> hadGeneration: is functional >> hadActivity: is functional >> >> As per prov-dm. >> >> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that >> the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) >> rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en >> >> --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional. >> >> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, >> endedAtTime, >> >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call >>> [PROV-O HTML] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444 >>> >>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>> On product: PROV-O HTML >>> >>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release. >>> >>> The document is at: >>> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html >>> >>> >>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to >>> the following questions: >>> >>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O >>> as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done). >>> >>> >>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate? >>> >>> >>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in >>> the cross reference? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team . >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- 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 United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 08:03:23 UTC