W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

reviewer feedback on prov-o ontology

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d505635e75ac02f386bea5657febc725o1M9U208L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F460718.5030205@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Dear prov-o team,

In my review, I focused on a subset usage, derivation, generation, and 

I raised a few issues:

- (ISSUE-253) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/253
   some properties (e.g. activity, entity, adoptedPlan) of involvements 
need to made functional

- (ISSUE-253) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/253
   the domain of hadTemporalExtent is broader than in prov-dm

- (ISSUE-262) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262
   the ontology seems to allow an entity to be used (with qualified 
usage) by another entity.

- (ISSUE-263) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/263
    Involvements such as usage can be shared by multiple activities.

Furthermore, the ontology allows for instances of involvements to be 
expressed, without
specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not aligned 
with the data model.

Choice of name: I understand 'hadTemporalExtent' as 'had a duration'. 
But Usage and Generation,
for instance, have got instantaneous time. I don't understand why 
xsd:dateTime is not directly associated
by means of a data property.


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 Thursday, 23 February 2012 09:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:08 UTC