- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:44:58 +0100
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Dani, On 19/06/2012 10:33, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Jun, > thanks for your feedback. You will find my answers below: > > 2012/6/18 Jun Zhao<jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> > >> 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? >> > Agents MAY be entities, but they may be not. With the current modeling > agents are not subclasses of entities (since not all agents are entities) > but they are not disjoint, which means that an agent can be an entity. If > we make agents subclass of entity, then we force them to be entities all > the time. (I think we discussed this in the prov-o telecons, but you may > not have been there at that time). Does this make sense now? I am sure we did, and I don't want to open any discussions on this again. However, I suggest we do make sure that there is nothing in the ontology preventing people from using a property of an Entity with an Agent if they need to. That's a total separate issue and I think we should not continue discussing it here. I am fine with the way you addressed all the following issues. So I would suggest we close this issue after you committed the changes. Cheers, Jun > >> >> [...] >> >> >> >>>> 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. > > prov:generated appears in the text, but not in the figure. I'll notify Tim > about this (he is the one who made the figure). > >> >> >> >>> >>>> === 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:) > > Ah I liked those :( . I thought of every example so it could be seen > independently from the others, and I don't think they overload the example > too much, don't you think? > >> >> >>> >>>> ==== 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. > > I have added them as comments in the example: > > prov:tracedTo :aggregatedByRegions; ## If > the file hadn't existed, Monica would have not written the post. > > ## However the file is not what Monica used as primary source for > writting the new post, > > ## so we can't consider the post to have "been derived from" it. > > Do you think we should add extra explanations above or below, or that is > enough? > >> >> >>> >>>> 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? > > I have discussed this with you offline and with the extra comments plus the > rename of the property everything is now more clear. > >> >> >>> >>>> 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.... >> > No problem! > Cheers, > Dani > >> >> -- Jun >> >>> >>>> Done >>> >>> Best, >>> Dnaiel >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:45:27 UTC