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: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:44:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4FE04A1A.6060406@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
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

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