W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-381 (jzhao): Feedback and refactoring suggestion to prov-o section 3.2 [PROV-O HTML]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:19:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0De8RFzC5Soyt=fFNSTuU3YhCr_XOkotuCsFaDS3NWbGCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Hi Jun,
I've made the following changes:

2012/5/23 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-381 (jzhao): Feedback and refactoring suggestion to prov-o
> section 3.2 [PROV-O HTML]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/381
> Raised by: Jun Zhao
> On product: PROV-O HTML
> Dear prov-o team and all,
> Here are some of my feedback based on reading the latest draft at
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html,
> yesterday afternoon.
> Please do not take my feedback as a criticism to the excellent by whoever
> worked on this section. This issue is meant to keep notes of some of things
> need to be updated due to the ontology updates, and also help make the spec
> more accessible to readers.
> I am happy to help address some of the refactor suggestions I raised here
> if we could draw some consensus as a group.
> Cheers,
> Jun
> ===============
> Housekeeping issues:
> 1) I think prov:Notes, prov:hasAnnotations are no longer in the ontology
> any more. These need to be updated in both the text and examples?
This has been updated

> 2) first paragraph: prov:AlternateOf -> prov:alternateOf

> === Refactoring suggestions ===
> My suggestions of refactoring are in the line of helping readers to
> quickly grasp what we can offer in this category.
> The first few paragraphs in the current draft are in a good direction of
> summarizing the different types of expanded terms we have. I wonder whether
> we can bring even a bit more structure into the introduction part of the
> section.
> I am organizing the current expanded terms in my mind in the following
> categories:
> - More specific terms: which is basically what the 1st paragraph says. But
> I'll also put the sub-properties of prov:tracedTo there, including
> prov:tracedTo, prov:hadOriginalSource, prov:wasRevisionOf,
> prov:wasQuotedFrom.
> - Provenance of dynamic resources: which are what prov:specializationOf
> and prov:alternateOf are about?
> - Provenance of provenance: prov:Accounts?
> - Additional descriptions: we only have prov:Location now?
> - Miscellaneous: prov:generated, prov:wasStartedBy, prov:wasEndedBy. I
> don't see them as specialization of any starting-point terms.
> I am sure my categorisation looks provocative to a lot of you and I am
> ready to follow on discussions:)
I have rewritten this part, according to your suggestions. I changed the
categories a bit, but more or less it's like yours.

> === Refactoring examples ===
> Some examples are a bit long, and are not going directly to demonstrate
> how the expanded terms can be used. And we should also be careful that we
> are writing a spec of the ontology, not a how-to guide.

> I am referring to the examples based on the order of their appearance in
> the spec.
> ==== Example 1 ====
> - Can we remove some of the setting-up-the-scene provenance statements?
I have separated the example to simplify, but I think that most of the
statements are either illustrating some expanded terms or necessary to
understand the experiment. Could you specify which ones would you like to

> - Can we highlight usage of expanded terms in bold font, if we are allowed
> to do so?
Khalid raised this issue as well. Tim is looking how to do it.

> - We also need to revise this example according to the ongoing discussions
> in a different internal thread.

> ==== Example 2 ====
> 1) The theme of the example seems to show off the different types of
> prov:tracedTo. But it did not show the difference between prov:tracedTo and
> prov:wasDerivedFrom. By some annotations in the example or explicit
> statement?
Thanks for spotting this, I have added a couple of sentences so users can
see the difference

> 2) I am not sure about the example of prov:hadOriginalSource. The current
> example does not show me how it is hugely different from what
> prov:wasDerivedFrom. DM says that prov:hadOriginalSource is meant to bring
> some sense of attribution to the source entity, such as a new paper is
> based on existing data shared by other scientists. Can we revise the
> example or make it clearer?

> 3) We need prefix to prov-o properties and concepts in this example.
I have reworked the example including the ones that were missing. Do you
still have this issue?

> ==== Example 3 ====
> Is this about Notes or Accounts? IMO, the example needs to be enriched or
> removed. Should we also say what RDF syntax we should to express Accounts?
It was about both, but it no longer makes sense. Thus I have replaced it
with some invalidation examples.

> ==== Example TBD ====
> We don't have expanded explanation of prov:wasStartedBy and
> prov:wasEndedBy. In the recent discussions we revealed there there were a
> lot of different "trigger" scenarios:
> - started by a person / agent;
> - started by an entity;
> - started by an activity.
> Either an example or additional text is needed.
Hmm, I haven't dealt with this yet. I added an example of an activity being
started by an agent, but I think that the complete example would fit in
better in the cross reference section.

> One more sentence to say that prov:generated is an inverse of
> prov:wasGeneratedBy? Copy the nice sentence in the ontology annotation:
> This inverse of prov:wasGeneratedBy is defined so that Activities being
> described can reference their generated outputs directly without needing to
> 'stop' and start describing the Entity. This helps 'Activity-centric'
> modeling as opposed to 'Entity-centric' modeling.?

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC