- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:42:51 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|2a84c6a02e83e2e4757a32510d0cc660nA68gs08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB79A0B>
Thanks Tim and Team for the hard work over the WE. I won't be able to join the call today, but I think my technical concerns are now addressed by your proposal. A few questions comments: 1. There is an outstanding issue (raised by Paul) that we should be able to have time associated with derivation. If adopted, this may require a derivation qualifier. Would your approach still work? In this case, which is the prov:entity? 2. You have introduced a qualifier in participation, there is none in prov-dm. Why is it required here, since it seems to just link entity and pe. (no time here, for instance) Should it be introduced in prov-dm? What else do we want to have? 3. It's the same for revision, there is no qualifier in prov-dm. But here, the Revision qualifier you introduce is of different nature, it is there to capture a ternary relation between entities (while before, it was binary relation between pe/entity, with a hook for "extra stuff"). 4. I understand why Generation "points to the future", but it makes it the odd one. It also seems that you can't write provenance "linearly" from future to past. Are you satisfied with this? 5. prov-dm introduces a relation "precedes" between events to give some interpretation to the data model. Potentially, it becomes possible to express it in the ontology. I am not suggesting that it should be encoded in the core ontology! 6. It would be good to write that unqualified involvement is "unprecise". When we assert used(pe,e), it could be because of QualifiedUse(pe,e,t1,role=r1) and QualifiedUse(pe,e,t2,role=r2). So, used(pe,e) gives a *lower bound* on the number of actual uses. 7. Your picture (which BTW, I like very much, and we could adopt in prov-dm!) has a Use and a Usage. BTW, what is it you crossed out? can you explain? 8. I like the fact you use nouns for properties of qualified involvement. There seems to be an exception, which is hadQuotee/hadQuoter (which is in the picture but not described below). 9. On the choice of term: "Involvement". Is this appropriate to use this term in the case of revision and quotation (BTW, there was a suggestion that complementOf could indicate time intervals, so the same technique coudl be used here), where there doesn't seem to be a process execution at all. You seem to have introduced "Qualified Relations" really. That's it for now, Thanks again for your work! Cheers, Luc On 11/06/2011 10:07 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > >> Hi all, >> The following is the agenda for our ontology telcon tomorrow at >> 12:00noon US EST (please note the corresponding time in Europe): >> >> 1. Review the OPMO-based solution for modeling role information in >> PROV-O OWL and the instantiation as RDF using James's "division >> example" (Tim, Daniel, Stephan) > > > Writeup is at > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O > > >> >> 2. Review the modified html document - (a) examples for >> wasRevisionOf, Recipe etc. (b) classes in "holding section", (c) >> properties in "holding section" >> >> 3. Review new section in html document - Mapping PROV-DM to PROV-O >> >> 4. Discuss proposal for simplifying the PROV-O for readers/users by >> re-structuring some of the properties in a "core" and an "extended" model > > For this, I'd like to remind the group about > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components > I'd also like to get acknowledgement that this can or will be used as > we move forward. > >> >> 5. Discuss addition of diagrams for some of the object properties >> >> We will use the Zakim bridge for the call +1.617.761.6200 >> <tel:+1.617.761.6200>, conference 695 ("OWL") and the titanpad for >> taking notes (Tim, can you please send out the link to the titanpad?) > > -Tim > -- 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, 7 November 2011 08:43:57 UTC