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 09:05:40 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|1275a5baa8e3cf849d1c1af599f8bac3o6895i08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFA90D4.7050403@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

... and no qualified form for membership.

Dont' we want subtyping and identification ?

Luc

On 07/09/2012 09:02 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 08:06:12 UTC

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