- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:15:48 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
prov-wg, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o now has the qualified membership terms (I added IncompleteCollection, which we haven't discussed before). The ontology in it's usual place: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl The examples need to be reviewed and updated. Any pointers to flaws would be appreciated. Regards, Tim On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > send a link and I'll try to look at it later today > > On 11/07/2012 14:31, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> Luc, >> >> I put qualified membership back into the OWL file. >> I need to regenerate the HTML and will check through the update today. >> >> If you can take a look and provide any early feedback, I'd appreciate it. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Tim >>> >>> I understood [1] as take the 'dictionary' concepts and move them in a separate document, >>> and keep the rest unchanged. We had just been through a round of discussion, for >>> which there seems to be agreement on Collection, EmptyCollection and the membership >>> as currently described in the dm. >>> >>> I agree though that it is a good idea to change the name to hadMembers or similar. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22#resolution_2 >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu] >>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:39 PM >>> To: Luc Moreau >>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML] >>> >>> Luc, >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:05 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>> >>>> ... and no qualified form for membership. >>>> >>>> Dont' we want subtyping and identification ? >>>> >>> I never got the impression that qualified membership was part of what "stayed in" during our F2F vote. >>> We continually said "Collection and hadMember", and never mentioned "qualifiedMembership and Membership". >>> >>> So, what was the intent of the group? >>> >>> Or, does DM intrinsically connect these and I just misinterpreted? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2012 09:02 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > 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 Wednesday, 11 July 2012 17:18:44 UTC