Re: PROV-O ready for internal WG review - due 9 April.

Hi prov-o team,

Great piece of work!


Answer to questions:

* Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the OWL design 

Sections 1 to 3 are great. Section 4,  automatically generated I 
believe, need more attention.

* Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM complement each 
other, or is it distracting?

I am not against a different organization. It makes sense to discuss, 
for instance, the qualified
pattern in the context of the ontology.

My only question is the apparent importance of collections. I would tend 
to downplay them.

References to the provdm:components are not explained. It linked to
nowhere.  What were the colors for (beyond being the ones in dm)?

* Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you read the cross 
reference list in PROV-O HTML?

Section 4 is arid, and not systematically handled. Suggestions below.

* Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize with the 
structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?

See suggestions below.

* Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., to the 
DM, to examples, etc.)?

I think it's a question that may also apply to other specs, including
prov-dm. Is it worth linking to constraints?

* Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, 
what are the blocking issues?

Yes, absolutely.  None of the issues I flagged here is blocking.


My comments:

Great piece of work. Sections 1 to 3 read nicely.
Section 4 is a bit arid, some improvement is desirable.

1. SOTD.
   It must be clear to the reader what order documents need to be read in.
   Suggest reusing SOTD from prov-dm.

2. section 1: remove reference to OWL semantics.

3. section 1: the prov-dm document no longer contains this example.
     I suggest that you make your presentation self-contained.

4. When the ontology stabilizes, you need to manually layout the box 
with all
    classes and relations.  Alphabetical order is not useful here. I would
    prefer to see a more logical ordering.

5. provo:Trace but provdm:Traceability.
    We should adopt a single term. I don't mind which.

6. Section 3, text following figure 1 refers to wasStartedBy instead of 

7. section 3: a picture (in PROV style!) would be desirable to 
illustrate the example

8. section 3.1: the example includes prov:Organization which is a term 
defined in section 3.2.

9. Is it necessary to see both foaf:Organization and prov:Organization?
                                foaf:Person and prov:Person?

10. Section 3.2: example has not the correct namespace. Need to check 

11. Section 3.3:
      choice of name: you have prov:qualifiedUsage, etc
                      why not simply prov:usage?

12. section 3.3. needs to explain why the qualified pattern is necessary.
     It should say that:  a prov:used e means that there is *some* usage 
of e by a
         (possibly more than one!)
     instances of prov:Usage allows usages to be distinguished and counted.

     Also, the pattern allows the expression of a given activity using a 
given entity,
     multiple times, at different moments.

13. section 3.3 last example: ex:usage, ex:generation, ex:activity are 
not defined.
     It would be good to see, in particular, ex:usage and ex:generation
     Maybe the names are not great for these instances.

14. section 3.4: is the rdf correct?
        :c1 a prov:Collection . <-
             prov:derivedByInsertionFrom ...
     Indentation is not clear either.

15. section 3.4: knownMembership
      I don't think it's a good name for this property. It should be 
      since it may be known, inferred, or guessed.

16. Generally speaking, it's quite advanced to see an example on 
collections so early.
     It seems to give importance to this kind of concept that does not 
reflect its real
     importance. It's also one of the most speculative bit in the model.

17.  Section 4 is  quite arid to read from beginning to end.
     But I appreciate it's designed mostly for online navigation.

     Generally, section 4 should handle all terms systematically.
     - use the prov-dm definition
     - illustration with an example (generally, these need to be 
formatted properly,
       otherwise they are not readable)
     - further comments,
     - etc.
     - characteristics do not seem to be expressed for all (see below)

     some terms currently have no comment.

18. Definition of agent in section 4 is not the same as in 3.1

19. Text about properties should adopt a same style.

     prov:wasGeneratedBy:  wasGeneratedBy links Entities ...
     prov:used:  A prov:Entity that was used by ...

20. Account: is defined in terms of a mechanism?
     In any case, that's an issue to solve for PROV

21. traceTo is supposed to link to and from Agents, but they are not 
listed in domain/range.

22. prov:Start/prov:End/prov:Generation ... are defined in terms of 
event as in part II, and not as in prov-dm part I.

23. Role is defined in the context of usage, generation, association, 
start and end,
    but hadRole has all involvments in its domain, including derivation 
and collection-derivations.

23 prov:Source.  Do we need to introduce a class for this? Why not just 
use Entity?

24  prov:agent, prov:entity, prov:activity must be made functional

25. prov:hadActivity, prov:hadGeneration, prov:hadUsage must be made 

26. prov:qualifiedInsertion and prov:qualifiedRemoval should be made 
inverse functional

27. Delete appendix A since it is out of date.

On 04/02/2012 09:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc, Paul, Simon, Sam, and MacTed,
> Over the past couple telecons, you have accepted to review and provide feedback for the PROV-O documents.
> Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing PROV-O HTML and OWL.
> If you could reply to this message when providing feedback, we would greatly appreciate it.
> Regards,
> <Tim Lebo>
>        prov:actedOnBehalfOf<PROV-O team>;
> .

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:39:55 UTC