- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:54:00 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B2568789-F840-41E1-9C66-99C5C57468C2@rpi.edu>
Luc, On Jul 11, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > 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 think it's reasonable to say that an element of a set influences the set. > 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? To do so will lose a lot of design consistency. > > Hhhhmmm? > > What ever the decision ... more editing in perspective :-( > Sorry about that. :-/ -Tim > > 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 20:57:05 UTC