- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:15:55 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|7779bd849db7b43a34234e4742595546o6ANHF08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFDFB1B>
Hi Tim,
We have a number of possibilities for qualified Membership. None
seems particularly good.
1. Membership is an Influence and a Derivation.
Some F2F3 participants seemed to be against membership as
derivation.
2. Membership is an Influence and not a Derivation
I feel that this is not realistic. To me, all forms of influence
between two entities are derivations.
It would also be surprising that a concept that was about
to be dropped from the provenance model, is in fact a primitive
form of influence, not expressible differently.
3. Membership is still qualified, but not an Influence.
This would break the prov-o design consistency.
4. Membership should not be qualified.
Some wanted to keep it qualified.
5. ... drop membership ... timeout!
Luc
On 11/07/12 21:54, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "example.org" claiming to be* 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 Kingdomhttp://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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 22:17:44 UTC