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

Re: Draft comments for the Organization Ontology LC (Deadline Midnight GMT November 24)

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:39:10 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|1346cb7fa982a14e54909eae5ea8be67oAOAdH08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50B1F54E.9020807@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Jun,
It's archived in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html

Luc

On 25/11/12 09:44, Jun Zhao wrote:
> Thanks Paul, and Luc for his offline support.
>
> The comments are now sent back to public-gld-comments@w3.org.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> -- Jun
>
> On 11/23/12 11:44 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> I'm fine with this.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please find below the draft response that Luc and I prepared for the
>>> last call for comments by the eGov WG regards to the Organization
>>> Ontology (http://www.w3.org/News/2012.html#entry-9606).
>>>
>>> It will become the group response unless we hear objections by Saturday
>>> Midnight GMT, November 24th.
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>>
>>> -- Jun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Organization Ontology Editors,
>>>
>>> The PROV WG reviewed the part of the document about extension to PROV.
>>> Generally speaking we agree with your following extensions:
>>>
>>>    - org:originalOrganization as a subproperty of prov:used,
>>>    - org:resultedFrom as a subproperty of prov:wasGeneratedBy
>>>    - org:ChangeEvent as a subclass of prov:Activity
>>>
>>> In addition, we would like to draw your attention to the concept of
>>> derivation [1] in PROV, which refers to a transformation of an entity
>>> into another, an update of an entity resulting in a new one, or the
>>> construction of a new entity based on a pre-existing entity. Based on
>>> some general knowledge, one might expect that a new organization should
>>> be a derivation of the old one, by some sort of transformation or 
>>> update
>>> or simply setting up a new entity. But does this indeed make sense with
>>> the use cases that you consider?
>>>
>>> This is a strong albeit useful assertion, enabling you to trace the
>>> history of an organization. However, the semantics of the PROV model
>>> does not let you infer this relationship by the combination of
>>> generation and usage, i.e.,  from the following triples:
>>>
>>> ex:o2  org:resultedFrom          ex:a1
>>> ex:a1  org:originalOrganization  ex:o1
>>>
>>> The PROV model regards ex:o1 and ex:o2 as totally unrelated, unless
>>> their relationship is explicitly stated otherwise. If the definition of
>>> derivation does fit your use case,  making use of this relationship in
>>> your ontology will make it much more in line with the upcoming
>>> provenance recommendation. So it is a matter to have a think about what
>>> you intend to achieve by using the prov:used and prov:wasGeneratedBy
>>> properties. If you want to include derivation in your ontology, then we
>>> make the following to suggestions:
>>>
>>> 1. We RECOMMEND that ex:o2 prov:wasDerivedFrom ex:o1 be explicitly
>>> asserted. (or a subproperty in the org: namespace)
>>> 2. Alternatively, you could add a property chain
>>>         org:resultedFrom followed by org:originalOrganization =>
>>> prov:WasDerivedFrom
>>>
>>>
>>> The second point is that the PROV model comes with a set of implicit
>>> semantics constraints (in its constraint document [2]). Although these
>>> constraints are not reflected in the PROV-O, we expect that a 
>>> provenance
>>> validator, compliant with  this document, will validate provenance
>>> statements on the Web. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to take a 
>>> pause
>>> and think whether the intention behind your ontology might lead to any
>>> violation to relevant constraints.
>>>
>>> For example, the generation-precedes-usage constraint [3] requires that
>>> the event when a new organization was generated must precede the event
>>> when the same organization was used in the process of generating 
>>> another
>>> organization.
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, we would also like to bring your attention to the concept of
>>> invalidation. In the PROV data model we say that an entity can have a
>>> lifetime. And the invalidation is the start of the destruction,
>>> cessation, or expiry of an existing entity by an activity [4].
>>>
>>> If this concept is adopted in the Organization Ontology, then you will
>>> be able to specify more precisely that the cease-to-exist of the old
>>> organization when a new organization was built up. Might this be 
>>> helpful
>>> to your use cases?
>>>
>>> Please be aware that by using this concept, there are several related
>>> constraints to bear in mind. An example is the
>>> usage-precedes-invalidation constraint [5], which means that the event
>>> when an old organization ceased to exist must follow the event when it
>>> was used in the org:ChangeEvent activity.
>>>
>>> We, the WG as a whole, will be happy to help you with any other issue
>>> related to PROV.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Jun, on behalf of the PROV WG
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Derivation
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/
>>> [3]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#generation-precedes-usage 
>>>
>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Invalidation
>>> [5]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#usage-precedes-invalidation 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
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 Sunday, 25 November 2012 10:39:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 25 November 2012 10:39:43 GMT