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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-379 (jzhao): Update provo html section 3.1 [PROV-O HTML]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:28:33 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <180CB938-3C98-4C6C-9E52-61C7E0EB3481@rpi.edu>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Jun,

Thanks for your comments. May we close this issue, given my responses below?

Regards,
Tim

On May 25, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Jun Zhao wrote:

> Hi Tim, Paul and all,
> 
> From what I understood from yesterday's call, we don't have to sync prov-o with prov-dm. Based on this assumption and based on our current list of prov-o starting-point terms in section 2, I listed things that need to updated in section 3.1 according to my access to [1] at 4.40pm UK time today.
> 
> - In the updated diagram, it doesn't show prov:wasInvalidatedBy, prov:generatedAt, and prov:invalidatedAt. They are listed in section 2. This needs to be made consistent. We also miss examples for this.

I'm assuming you mean prov:generatedAtTime and prov:invalidatedAtTime

All three of these properties were moved to the expanded section. The diagram and the list of starting terms now match.

I just checked the example, and it uses all of the started point terms.
We are missing examples for them in expanded, and I added a note there (so that we can close this issue on 3.1)

( ISSUE-386 )

> 
> - The text in section 3.1 still mentions prov:wasStartedByActivity.

No longer.

> 
> - We don't have any explanation about invalidation properties, nor examples.

This was moved to section 3.2, where the  properties are mentioned and an example given in narrative.
We still need to put invalidation into the 3.2 example turtle, and I've made a note in the turtle itself.

( ISSUE-386 )

> 
> 
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html
> 
> I think the big inconsistent is now between section 3.1 and terms list in section 2. I don't know what the group decision is on this aspect.

I proposed and the call agreed this Monday that the current list is "the right amount" to get started. Since invalidation came much later in the WG progress, we felt that it makes sense to keep it in "extended" section.


Thanks,
Tim



> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jun
> 
> On 24/05/2012 10:03, Paul Groth wrote:
>> One thing to note here is that we are trying to synchronize prov-o and
>> prov-dm "core".  So this may be worth waiting for the agreement on
>> what constitutes the core.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>>> Jun,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 23, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Jun Zhao wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>> 
>>>> I also updated the powerpoint in our old dropbox with a new starting-point terms slide. Where are your new SVG figures?
>>> 
>>> The SVG figures are now linked from http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
>>> (I recovered from my backup!)
>>> 
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-379 (jzhao): Update provo html section 3.1 [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/379
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao
>>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The diagram and example in this section need to updated according to the updated ontology or the list of starting-point terms in section 2.
>>> 
>>> Regarding the contents of this issue, could you be more specific about what you feel needs to be updated?
>>> If you see the disparities already, it's easier to fix them than to find them :-)
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:29:06 GMT