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: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:02:54 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c2c2b0616ead3c723f7a8de8fddad3f8o6892u08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFA902E.30405@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi prov-o team,

It seems there is another non-alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
Isn't there a prov:EmptyCollection class in the ontology?

Luc


On 07/04/2012 03:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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
>   too.
>
> - 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 
> complicates
>   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.... 
> swissair_flight_111>?
>
> - 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
>
> :nationalRegionsList
>    a prov:Entity;
>    prov:qualifedAttribution [
>       a prov:Attribution;
>       prov:agent   :civil_action_group;
>       prov:hadRole :owner;
>    ]
> .
>
>
>
> - no role in delegation
>
> :chauffeur
>    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
> :bar_chart
>    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
> :temperatureDisplay
>    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
>
> :newsPublication
>    a prov:Activity;
>    prov:used :tsunami_image;
>    prov:qualifiedUsage [
>       a prov:Usage;
>       :hasCopyrightPermission :licensedUse;
>       :hasOwner               :reuters;
>    ];
>
> Need to add prov:influencer tsunami_image
>
>
> -
>
> prov:ProvenanceService
> prov:hasAnchor  prov:hasProvenance  prov:hasProvenanceService  
> prov:provenanceUriTemplate
> 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 
> informative.
>
> - 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 
>>> [PROV-O HTML]
>>>
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 9 July 2012 08:03:23 UTC

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