- From: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:29:46 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <8960BAC0-A0C6-4C2F-890E-93E84286D52E@rpi.edu>
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2012, at 18:15, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > 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. This was the direction that I thought we went. Tim > 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 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 23:33:08 UTC