W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-O telcon

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:42:51 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2a84c6a02e83e2e4757a32510d0cc660nA68gs08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB79A0B.1070501@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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>
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 
    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

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 
     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!


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC