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

Luc,

I put qualified membership back into the OWL file.
I need to regenerate the HTML and will check through the update today.

If you can take a look and provide any early feedback, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,
Tim

On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim
> 
> I understood [1] as take the 'dictionary' concepts and move them in a separate document,
> and keep the rest unchanged.  We had just been through a round of discussion, for
> which there seems to be agreement on Collection, EmptyCollection and the membership
> as currently described in the dm.
> 
> I agree though that it is a good idea to change the name to hadMembers or similar.
> 
> Regards,
> Luc
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22#resolution_2
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:39 PM
> To: Luc Moreau
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last   call [PROV-O HTML]
> 
> Luc,
> 
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:05 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
>> 
>> ... and no qualified form for membership.
>> 
>> Dont' we want subtyping and identification ?
> 
> I never got the impression that qualified membership was part of what "stayed in" during our F2F vote.
> We continually said "Collection and hadMember", and never mentioned "qualifiedMembership and Membership".
> 
> So, what was the intent of the group?
> 
> Or, does DM intrinsically connect these and I just misinterpreted?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
>> 
>> 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 Wednesday, 11 July 2012 13:34:39 UTC