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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:02:31 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a07870b1546ba4ae1898742100884be4o63F2e08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FF44CF7.7090301@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi prov-o team, again,

Find below some specific comments about the provo document.

Thanks for the extensive work!
It needs some polishing, but the majority of it, can happen after LC.

Answer to your questions:

1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as 
Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).

- Minor Issues in the ontology raised in my previous message
- Definition alignment, and make sure that example don't use constructs 
incorrectly (e..g hadRole)

2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?

- Yes, though I couldn't follow the scenario anymore without a picture. 
Can a picture be added, with the style adopted by other documents

3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the 
cross reference?

- See comment below.

Specific comments:

Section 1
- owl-rl -> orl-rl ++
- para 3: provdm introduces a MINIMAL set of concepts ... delete MINIMAL
- "... which facilitate a fixed interpretation and use of the prov data 
model concepts based on the formal semantics of owl2: " delete
- reference to xml-schema should be to xml-schema11 (owl2 automatically 
switched to xml-schema11)

section 2:
- "the terms in this category ARE APPLIED IN the same way ..." not sure 
what this mean.

section 3.1:
- "the starting point category is a small COLLECTION ..." to avoid 
confusion, use SET instead.

- definitions entity/activity/etc need updating

- "In this case, the Agent that influenced an Activity or Entity 
prov:actedOnBehalfOf another Agent that MAY HAVE HAD LESS INFLUENCE, but 
still bears some responsibility for the resulting Activity or Entity."   
I am not sure we should say this at all.  The agent may or may not have 
had more or less influence.

- http://example.org# -> http://example.org/# ?   everywhere

- example after fig 1: it would be nice to see a "prov-style" picture

- example 2 (agent derek) ... it was suggested for prov-dm that
   examples should be described in past tense. It should be done here

- i don't understand wy ex:post9821v1 is a specialization of ex:post9821,
   I can see it's an alternate. (in example code and in text)

- inmediately->immediately

- "Since the provenance produced by the activities of Derek and Monica 
correspond to different user views, the system automatically publish it 
in different prov:Bundles (ex:bundlePost and ex:bundlePost1)." I don't 
understand.  It is part of the scenario? or is part of prov?

- I am lost in the example without a picture

- Suggestion: number examples

- an example still has prov:hasAnnotation

- "and all the data related to the post is lost. " permanently?

- example: bundles have not been used, so what is their point?

- figure 3: can we keep the conventions used elsewhere: agent is 
represented by pentagon.

- comments in some of the example (e.g. qualified usage) go beyond the 
box, into the margin

- cross referencing, I am not against it, I am concern about the 
additional space it takes.
   Can it be folded in the title section?
   It's probably too early at this stage to link to constraints, though
   this would be valuable once the prov-constraints document is stable.

- examples: dererk -> dereck

- examples: to save space, can we define all prefixes upfront and avoid 
repeating them

- prov:wasDerivedFrom contains definition of entity, and not of derivation

- prov:Bundle: the text talks about account

- prov:Bundle: maybe should state the purpose: provenance of provenance

- prov:alternateOf: contains definition of software agent

- <> prov:wasDerivedFrom < .... dm ...>  :
   I guess it's always good to eat our own dog food, but I think this 
   the examples.

- prov:invalidatedAtTime the painter seem to be destroyed in 2012???

- prov:mentionOf/specializationOf: have software agent as definition.

- prov:value:  "The main value  ... of a STRUCTURED value."
   What is structured, here?

- prov:wasInvalidatedBy example:
Is it right to say swissair_flight_111_crash prov:used <http//db.... 

- prov:Influence and its subclasses: can they be used alone without a 
concrete  influence?
   Shouldn't the text say something and RECOMMEND the use of subclasses?

- prov:Communication is not allowed in the domain of atLocation (see
   example for prov:Communication)

- typo: prov:Actvity in example with policySale

- Delegation is not in the domain of hadRole (see insuranceAgent_Frank)

- example of derivation goes into margin

- EntityInvolvment: comments that appear in the example should be given 
in the narrative.

- Quotation no longer has hadQuoter and hadQuoted in prov-dm

- prov:Revision, the binary wasAttributedTo is incorrectly qualified by 
an Association
   instead of Attribution

- example for prov:hadGeneration
   has a qulaifiedDerivation,
    dont' you need to specifiy influencer entity?

-  no role allowed in attribution

    a prov:Entity;
    prov:qualifedAttribution [
       a prov:Attribution;
       prov:agent   :civil_action_group;
       prov:hadRole :owner;

- no role in delegation

    a prov:Person;
    prov:actedOnBehalfOf :celebrity-in-car;
    prov:qualifiedDelegation [
       a prov:Delegation;
       prov:agent   :celebrity-in-car;
       prov:hadRole :employer; # The celebrity employed the chauffeur 
during the enforcement.

- prov:qualifiedDerivation
    prov:wasDerivedFrom :aggregatedByRegions;
    prov:qualifiedDerivation [
       a prov:Derivation;
       prov:hadGeneration :illustration;

Shouldn't you link to :aggregatedByRegions;?

- qualifiedInvalidation: check time of crash

- prov:qualifiedQuotation uses quoter/quotedAgent

- qualified source
    a prov:Entity;
    prov:hadOriginalSource :sensorReading20120510;
    prov:qualifiedSource [
       a prov:Source;
       prov:entity         :sensorReading20120510;

  Isn't there a RECOMMENDation to use the qualified pattern only if it 
adds new information?
  It does not do it here.

- qualified usage

    a prov:Activity;
    prov:used :tsunami_image;
    prov:qualifiedUsage [
       a prov:Usage;
       :hasCopyrightPermission :licensedUse;
       :hasOwner               :reuters;

Need to add prov:influencer tsunami_image


prov:hasAnchor  prov:hasProvenance  prov:hasProvenanceService  
Should not be described in the html document, but in the paq document.

-  appendix
# Instead of defining their own, modelers should use the
# recommended inverse local name within the PROV namespace:

This is confusing. So, it would be better to say that they are defined 
in prov namespace
though not defined in prov-o.html ( a bit like paq stuff). It would be 

- OWL2 primer should be normative reference

On 04/07/2012 10:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi prov-o team,
> Thanks for producing the document. Here are a few comments on the 
> ontology, before I start reading
> the html document.
> I think you removed too many of the property characteristics, some of 
> which are prov-o specific
> (as opposed to being prov-constraints specific).
> Otherwise,  I think the ontology is aligned with prov-dm. I think that 
> Influence and influencer are
> quite nice!
> Cheers,
> Luc
> 1. hadRole: why is domain defined as intersection of Influence and six 
> of its subclasses.
>    Why not the subclasses directly?
> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional?
>   Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a 
> qualified Influence
>   for multiple subjects. This is not intended.
>   The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional 
> before, but I think
>    this characteristic was incorrectly removed.
> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per
> qualified pattern instance, isn't there.
> 4. Likewise:
> hadPlan: is functional
> hadUsage: is functional
> hadGeneration: is functional
> hadActivity: is functional
>    As per prov-dm.
> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that 
> the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) 
> rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en
> --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional.
> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, 
> endedAtTime,
> Cheers,
> Luc
> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release.
>> The document is at:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html 
>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to 
>> the following questions:
>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O 
>> as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in 
>> the cross reference?
>> Regards,
>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team .
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 14:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:17 UTC