PROV-ISSUE-382 (jzhao): Qualification patters in prov-o section 3.3 [PROV-O HTML]

PROV-ISSUE-382 (jzhao): Qualification patters in prov-o section 3.3 [PROV-O HTML]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/382

Raised by: Jun Zhao
On product: PROV-O HTML


Dear prov-o team and all,

This is related to issue ISSUE-381, based on my reading of https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html, yesterday afternoon.

Again, please do not take my feedback as a criticism to the excellent by whoever worked on this section. I went out to look for some "qualification patterns" as we agreed on Monday's call, and here are some of my findings.:)

Cheers,

Jun

== Housekeeping ==

1) we don't have a table to summarize qualification patterns for Dictionary terms. We have that for starting-point and expanded terms.

2) We need to add qualification pattern for property prov:wasInvalidatedBy to the starting-point terms table.

3) The first example cannot be simpler, can it?:) I guess whoever put it there in the first place was trying to make it simple for readers, but I think it does not hold enough substance to even support the text around it.

== Refactoring suggestions ==

=== The "cheat-sheet" tables ===

I set out to look for the "patterns" people have been telling me about. I still think the "cheatsheet-like" tables towards the end of the section are most helpful, to tell me the patterns that are very hard indeed to explain in words.

So can we move those two tables, (maybe 3 after adding one for collections) to the front of the section, to support the patterns described in the 1st paragraph?

=== The "qualification patterns" ===

I got the patterns easily enough by reading the first 3 columns of these tables, and if I work my brain just a bit hard, I can follow where any of 4th column property should be use. But I am really struggling with these two groups of terms in the current qualification terms category:

Group 1: activity, entity, agent, dictionary

Group 2: hadActivity, hadGeneration, hadUsage ( I am fine with hadPlan and hadRole, because they are named so differently from those in group 1)

They made my head spin, and I think this is a sign that we should have a dedicate paragraph to say something about them.

I think group 1 are used to point to the objects being qualified, and group 2 are used to provide the additional statements about the can-be-qualifeid properties, via their corresponding qualify classes or an involvement class. Does this summary make sense?

For me, it will better if:
1) we make an explanation of the above sort right at the beginning of the section, after or before the cheat-sheet tables; if you all do agree to move those tables forward.

2) name group 1 terms to involvedActivity, involvedXXX. I know I am being provocative again. You might have already been there, and sorry if I am bringing back the old wound:)

3) Another cheat-sheet table, to show which classes SHOULD/CAN/MAY be used together with group 2 terms. Choose your normative word, whoever really understands what's going on there. Again, some of our offline discussions already touched this. I think adding restrictions using OWL constructs are not as straightforward as tables :)

=== Refactoring the examples ===

After we agree on how to move forward with the above two refactoring, we should reconsider the current examples in the section.
- Some of them could be moved?
- We should make better use of the nice Figure 2?
- Rewrite some of the examples to explain the usage of group 1 v.s 2 terms?

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:42:56 UTC