- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:38:31 +0100
- 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