Re: PROV-ISSUE-382 (jzhao): Qualification patters in prov-o section 3.3 [PROV-O HTML]

Jun,

I am closing this issue because much of it has been incorporated into the draft.

Please re-raise issues on any remaining aspects here.

Regards,
Tim

On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Jun,
> 
> May we close this issue? I believe we have worked through the largest point as we worked toward LC over the past weeks.
> Anything left can be raised as new issues?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 
>> Jun,
>> 
>> My response to this issue is poorly overdue. I apologize.
>> 
>> Although a couple of your points have been addressed already, many others would be very valuable to include.
>> 
>> I've provided responses (and some requests) within your text below.
>> 
>> The latest draft is at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o and I will be responding to your comments based on that.
>> 
>> I've also extracted the main points to our agenda for Monday:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-07-09#Jun
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>>> PROV-ISSUE-382 (jzhao): Qualification patters in prov-o section 3.3 [PROV-O HTML]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/382
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao
>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear prov-o team and all,
>>> 
>>> This is related to issue ISSUE-381, based on my reading of https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html, yesterday afternoon.
>>> 
>>> Again, please do not take my feedback as a criticism to the excellent by whoever worked on this section. I went out to look for some "qualification patterns" as we agreed on Monday's call, and here are some of my findings.:)
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jun
>>> 
>>> == Housekeeping ==
>>> 
>>> 1) we don't have a table to summarize qualification patterns for Dictionary terms. We have that for starting-point and expanded terms.
>> 
>> OBE since Dictionary moved to notes.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) We need to add qualification pattern for property prov:wasInvalidatedBy to the starting-point terms table.
>> 
>> By "table", do you mean listing?
>> 
>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#prov-o-at-a-glance
>> 
>> currently lists the following (which includes wasInvalidedBy)
>> prov:alternateOf
>> prov:asInBundle
>> prov:atLocation
>> prov:generated
>> prov:generatedAtTime
>> prov:hadMember
>> prov:hadPrimarySource
>> prov:influenced
>> prov:invalidated
>> prov:invalidatedAtTime
>> prov:mentionOf
>> prov:specializationOf
>> prov:value
>> prov:wasEndedBy
>> prov:wasInvalidatedBy
>> prov:wasQuotedFrom
>> prov:wasRevisionOf
>> prov:wasStartedBy
>> 
>> It is also in http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#qualified-forms-expanded
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) The first example cannot be simpler, can it?:) I guess whoever put it there in the first place was trying to make it simple for readers, but I think it does not hold enough substance to even support the text around it.
>>> 
>> 
>> The first example (immediately after Figure 1) is longer than you describe. Perhaps it grew?
>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#starting-points-figure
>> 
>> 
>>> == Refactoring suggestions ==
>>> 
>>> === The "cheat-sheet" tables ===
>>> 
>>> I set out to look for the "patterns" people have been telling me about. I still think the "cheatsheet-like" tables towards the end of the section are most helpful, to tell me the patterns that are very hard indeed to explain in words.
>>> 
>>> So can we move those two tables, (maybe 3 after adding one for collections) to the front of the section, to support the patterns described in the 1st paragraph?
>> 
>> 
>> The tables have been moved up:
>> 
>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-qualified-terms
>> 
>> after the tables, a small example, then graphical illustrations of the same material in the tables.
>> 
>> Does this flow help?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> === The "qualification patterns" ===
>>> 
>>> I got the patterns easily enough by reading the first 3 columns of these tables, and if I work my brain just a bit hard, I can follow where any of 4th column property should be use.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, the tables are up to 6 columns now, so if your head spun at 4, then we might have a bigger problem on our hands.
>> Any suggestions that you may have for what to cut would be greatly appreciated.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But I am really struggling with these two groups of terms in the current qualification terms category:
>>> 
>>> Group 1: activity, entity, agent, dictionary
>>> 
>>> Group 2: hadActivity, hadGeneration, hadUsage ( I am fine with hadPlan and hadRole, because they are named so differently from those in group 1)
>>> 
>>> They made my head spin, and I think this is a sign that we should have a dedicate paragraph to say something about them.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree, and this is not done yet.
>> We need a paragraph for "what to do once you've qualified" that cites "activity, entity, agent, dictionary" and lists the options "hadActivity, hadGeneration, hadUsage"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I think group 1 are used to point to the objects being qualified, and group 2 are used to provide the additional statements about the can-be-qualifeid properties, via their corresponding qualify classes or an involvement class. Does this summary make sense?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. We should write that up.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> For me, it will better if:
>>> 1) we make an explanation of the above sort right at the beginning of the section, after or before the cheat-sheet tables; if you all do agree to move those tables forward.
>> 
>> 
>> Good place as any. Once we have a sketch of the paragraph, it'll go there.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) name group 1 terms to involvedActivity, involvedXXX. I know I am being provocative again. You might have already been there, and sorry if I am bringing back the old wound:)
>> 
>> 
>> since involvee was renamed to influencer, I think this would not be a suggestion to rename:
>> 
>> activity, entity, activity 
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> influencingActivity, influencingEntity, influencingActivity
>> 
>> the former are shorter, the latter are more self-describing.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) Another cheat-sheet table, to show which classes SHOULD/CAN/MAY be used together with group 2 terms. Choose your normative word, whoever really understands what's going on there. Again, some of our offline discussions already touched this. I think adding restrictions using OWL constructs are not as straightforward as tables :)
>> 
>> 
>> This kind of "cheat sheet" is available in the cross reference, but I really like the idea of pulling it all together into a table.
>> Could you mock up some tables that you would like to see?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> === Refactoring the examples ===
>>> 
>>> After we agree on how to move forward with the above two refactoring, we should reconsider the current examples in the section.
>>> - Some of them could be moved?
>>> - We should make better use of the nice Figure 2?
>>> - Rewrite some of the examples to explain the usage of group 1 v.s 2 terms?
>> 
>> Any suggestions here welcome.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>