- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:49:04 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|9decee30c8ceed4284e9d3253480afa9o6ALoN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFDE6C0>
Hi Tim, Thanks for the updated membership. /We do have misalignment between provo and prov-dm. And I don't know how to solve it. / In prov-dm, membership is not a subtype of influence. I recall explicitly some F2F3 participants didn't want membership as a form of derivation. I am not sure what their view would be about influence. If the group agrees that membership *is* a kind of influence, I don't know where Influence should go in prov-dm, since it would no longer belong to component 3. If the group decides that membership *is* not a kind of influence, can you still express Membership using the qualified pattern ... without influence? Hhhhmmm? What ever the decision ... more editing in perspective :-( Sorry about that. Luc On 11/07/12 18:15, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 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 20:50:55 UTC