- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:05:40 +0100
- 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