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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:15:48 -0400
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DE33D926-2E4D-432E-ABE6-62851C3FF5C4@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
prov-wg,

http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o

now has the qualified membership terms (I added IncompleteCollection, which we haven't discussed before).


The ontology in it's usual place:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl


The examples need to be reviewed and updated. Any pointers to flaws would be appreciated.


Regards,
Tim


On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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 17:18:44 UTC

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