Re: PROV-ISSUE-347 (review-provo-luc): feedback from Luc on prov-o WD [prov-n]

Hi Jun

For hadRole, I am fine with your answer.

For qualifiedXXX: whenever I read this, I always expect an unqualifiedXXX.   But obviously, it does not exist, there is only a concept XXX.

The other issue is that the ontology has properties such as hadActivity.
So, when we say qualifiedXXX, do we mean "to qualify XXX" in the past tense, or "a qualified XXX".

I also suggested dropping "had" in some property names. 
Indeed, hadActivity (to have activity) vs qualifiedXXx (not to qualify XXx but a qualified XXX). This does not seem uniform.

Dropping both qualified and had would help simplifying *labels* (it does not change the interpretation).

But that's OK, it was only a suggestion to simplify, and it was not a blocker for release. The real test is the feedback from outside the WG.

thanks,

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 13 Apr 2012, at 17:23, "Jun Zhao" <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Luc,
> 
> I am trying to help Tim to address some of your feedback in this issue. A lot of your other feedback will be implemented during the editorial process separately.
> 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> This is a todo for us now. We will add more annotations to the OWL file rather than linking to the DM.
> 
> >
> > 11. Section 3.3:
> > choice of name: you have prov:qualifiedUsage, etc
> > why not simply prov:usage?
> 
> Because these properties are to be used for expressing "qualified relationships". I think with a qualitied- "prefix", it's easier for people to realize that this is a qualified property. Without it, prov:usage becomes vague and less straightforward, and people have to go and read documentation to understand what this is about.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> I think this has is also related to thread [1].
> 
> Such similar feedback have come several times. And I would like us to consider two additional things:
> 
> 1) The prov-o is an OWL-RL ontology that implements DM. Given the set of semantics that can be expressed using OWL-RL, we couldn't have a one-to-one implementation of DM, just like a prov-xml schema cannot either. It's a compromised made for implementation.
> 
> 2) Even if we do have a perfect prov-o implementation of DM, there is still nothing we can do to prevent people from using it wrongly or saying stupid things. The abuse of ontologies/vocabularies on the Semantic Web is nearly universal.
> 
> 
> 3) A possibility of saying something is different from being able to automatically infer that something. Our use of OWL-RL does provide a possibility for users to associate a derivation with a role, but the RL semantics would *not* infer that if something is a derivation, then it must have some sort of role. This is the best I can do for explanation and I hope I got it right:). A sensible user of prov-o, if read the spec properly, then would/should not have abused "hadRole".
> 
> See also Tim's original example in [2].
> 
> (prov:hadActivity rdfs:domain prov:Involvement .
> :s prov:hadActivity :a
> --------
> :s a prov:Involvement
> 
> 
> this is different than saying:
> 
> :q a prov:Quotation
> -------
> :q prov:hadActivity :activity)
> 
> 
> The current implementation of prov-o is a compromise that we made so that we can use OWL-RL. A justification of OWL-RL is a separate issue. The prov-o team were strongly advised to use OWL-RL and that's what we did. I don't think you are *not sympathetic* of their situation and the problems that they had to deal with or had dealt with. :)
> 
> I suggest what we can do with this problem is in section 4, when we define the properties like "hadRole" or "hadActivity", we make it clear what/how we exactly expect people to use these properties.
> 
> Would that sound like a good compromise to you? If you do, then we will act upon that.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Apr/0145.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Apr/0168.html
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -- Jun
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 22:21:19 UTC