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: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:38:31 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|79e51ca0cf42e77273f36eda7089e298o6AEcZ08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFD81D7.8010602@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
send a link and I'll try to look at it later today

On 11/07/2012 14:31, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
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 13:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:18 UTC