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: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:47:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4FDF4D75.6080905@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Dani,

Sorry for my late reply. I have been trying to catch up...


Some further feedback re. section 3.2.

At the end of 2nd paragraph, it says that "Further, Agents may be 
Entities, in cases where one wishes to describe the provenance of 
Agents." Based on this, I infer that an Agent can be a subclass of an 
Entity, but this is not defined as such in the current ontology. Did I 
misunderstand you?

[...]

>>
> I have rewritten this part, according to your suggestions. I changed the
> categories a bit, but more or less it's like yours.

Thanks! I only found prov:generated was missed in both the figure and text.

>
>>
>> === 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
> remove?

I meant specially those triples for defining the agents, like about 
Derek, who has been defined in the starting-point example, hasn't he? I 
am not sure people would generally have trouble to understand derek, 
monica, chartgen without all the additional triples. But it's just my 
personal opinion:)
>
>>
>> ==== 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

Sorry, but I couldn't find them? Above or below the updated example? I 
mean particularly about prov:tracedTo.
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
> Done

Mmmm, have you been kept up with the discussions about issue 395. I 
understand that this original source has more of a meaning as a primary 
source, rather than a simple derivation relationship. And I am not sure 
this is very clear from the example atm.

What I am not sure is how much details we need to go in the spec. It's 
not easy to make *every* term totally understandable with just one line 
or just one RDF triple. I wonder whose responsibility it is? Should the 
cross-reference section be the more appropriate place?
>
>>
>> 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?

No more:)
>
>>
>> ==== 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.

Great!
>
>>
>> ==== 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.

Agree.
>
>>
>> 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.?

Thanks!

Again, sorry for the late reply....

-- Jun
>>
> Done
>
> Best,
> Dnaiel
>
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 15:48:17 UTC

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