- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:52:03 +0200
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0DeS_Kh02j1XWgzAOsrmWvURrO4v-d=2CMh6wQDkXtih7Q@mail.gmail.com>
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