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: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 16:50:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoNFqz6k82Ci0Fd2jq8Zv=SVfA5eSjzuaUT_UJvNQLamw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Prov-O Team:

Thanks for all your work. It's both a good ontology and a very
readable document. Here are the answers to the review questions and my
comments below. I'm happy with the document to got to Last Call

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).

All the major technical work is done in my opinion. I had a question
about inverses but it is not a blocker more clarification.

2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
Yes, I believe that some of the examples are being corrected. But the
examples themselves are adequate.

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

I would remove the links to prov-constraints and prov-n but leave
those to prov-dm.

Specific comments:
- should we add a prov:wasAttributedTo the ontology

"It can also be specialized to create new classes and properties to
model provenance information specific to different domain

"It can also be specialized to create new classes and properties to
model provenance information for different applications and domains"

==Status of this Document==

- remove " before the implementation phase."
- in "how to read" change OWL-RL ontology to OWL


- last line paragraph one remove "and management"
- paragraph 2, repeat of the sentence "PROV-O conforms to the OWL-RL
profile and is lightweight so that it can be adopted in the widest
range of applications."

==PROV-o at a glance==

- last sentence first paragraph. you say there are four categories but
now there are only there categories. Remove collections.

==3.1 Starting Point Terms==
- I think the following statement is unnecessary - "A
prov:wasInformedBy relation between Activities suggests that the
informed Activity used an Entity that was generated by the informing
Activity, but the Entity itself is not interesting. So, the
prov:wasInformedBy property allows the assertion of provenance chains
comprising only Activities"

- I wonder if a better example organization instead of ex:chartgen
would be "National Newspaper"

==3.2 Expanded Terms==
- I wonder if the 5 categories should be more prominent
- "Activity-centric in addition to Entity-centric modeling" - can we
link to what this means?
- before the example you say "Agent Derek", it should just be Derek -
I don't think we're describing a matrix film :-)
- I think the team was already looking at the consistency of the
examples. It was Chart Generators and now in this example it's Chart
Generators Inc
- Can we fit the comments into the text box?

==Section 4==

- it may be nice that the "see alsos" e.g. See also prov:endedAtTime
are linked to the corresponding concept

- In both prov:wasAttributedTo and prov:wasDerivedFrom I don't
understand why you repeat the definition of entity?

- Class Bundle: "Note that there are kinds of accounts (e.g.
handwritten letters, audio recordings, etc.) that are not expressed in
PROV-O, but can be still be described by PROV-O." - account needs to
be replaced with bundle

- prov:alternateOf and prov:specializationOf has "A software agent is
running software." as it's definition - this needs to be fixed

- I like the example of wasQuotedFrom :-)

==Section B==
- Inverses - I'm interested in the choice here. I think it's the right
move but I wonder if breaks anything actually not defining the
inverses? I also wondered if you were to define the inverses in a
separate owl file and did an owl import would that solve the problem?
This is more of a question for my edification rather than a

==Layout Questions==
- These are points that can be addressed or not
-- I guess eventually we may add some rdfa in the document?
-- I wondered if we could have same javascript that would let us
collapse the parts of section 4. This may make it easier to read.
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2012 14:50:29 UTC

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