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

All --

On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
> PROV-O HTML and OWL.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336



Apologies for the delay in my review.  

Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following 
with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for 
release as FPWD2 --

<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>

(Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work 
is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this 
release... but these comments remain important.)



First, to the key questions --

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

As things stand, yes.


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

Their differences are fine.


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

1. Remove the redundant explanatory text.  It should not follow
   *both* IRI and Example.  Given my choice, I'd say the better
   positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
   and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.

   Now seen in at least
   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>

   But not seen in
   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>

2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of 
   section 4.1.  I would also appreciate a complete
   set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start 
   of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
   illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
   with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
   *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
   helpful to correct understanding).


> * Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize 
>   with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
> * Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., 
>   to the DM, to examples, etc.)?


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

As noted earlier... Yes.


And now... in depth.


3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.  
   I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns, 
   such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically 
   increases comprehension.  You can see a bit that (almost) does 
   this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.  
   (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the 
   first line match the ones beneath it.)






re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>

4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap 
   positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
   and "Expanded classes and properties".  The former is clearly
   a refinement of the latter.

   Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
   (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can 
   act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.

   It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
   property, used when you *don't know* what class started the 
   current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent 
   and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly* 
   prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know 
   the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but 
   general RDF entity).

   Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout 
   the following and connected documents... 



re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>

5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
   (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and 
   prov:wasStartedByAgent).



6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity 
   which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance 
   document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF 
   entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as 
   a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all 
   to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its 
   own Provenance...



7. This phrasing is problematic --

   "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is 
   used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was 
   influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."

   "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the 
   "consumed" entity.  I think this is not necessary, and thus 
   that this wording should change to something like --

   "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is 
   used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was 
   influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple 
   presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical 
   interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants), 
   or otherwise."





re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>


8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"

   I detect a typo.  "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"



9. This wording is confusing to me --

   "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink, 
   but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."

   The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent 
   link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the 
   preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the 
   latest version is shown")

   I think this would be better --

   "Thus, the permalink to the latest version 
   (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new 
   revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot 
   (ex:postContent1)."

   I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example 
   block, from --

      prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities;   ##PERMALINK of the post

-- to --

      prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities;   ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post




re: 3.4 Collections Terms
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>

10. I think there's an error in this text --

    "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was 
    obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the 
    key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."

    I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".


Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
out now, than to delay it further.

Speak with you soon,

Ted




--
A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
     Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers