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: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:52:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeS_Kh02j1XWgzAOsrmWvURrO4v-d=2CMh6wQDkXtih7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks a lot Jun.
I have closed the issue.
Best,
Daniel

2012/6/19 Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

> 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 09:52:37 UTC

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