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 21:49:04 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9decee30c8ceed4284e9d3253480afa9o6ALoN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFDE6C0.7010208@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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

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