- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:47:23 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|e8b78176482f321e9b1cee512b69360doA4ElP08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5097D17B>
+1 from me too.
Luc
On 11/05/2012 02:30 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> +1 good response, Tim
>
> Paul
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 5:55, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu
> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>
>> prov-wg,
>>
>> Your approval is needed for the draft response to issue 552.
>>
>> The response is at
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-552_.28Influence_subclasses.29
>>
>> and is copied below.
>>
>> Please raise objections before tomorrow 5pm UK time, so that we can
>> close this out before the F2F.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> ISSUE-552 (Influence subclasses)
>>
>> * Original email:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html
>> * Tracker: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
>> * Group Response:
>> o On "subclassing Influence":
>> + The WG agrees with the suggestion that the phrase "a
>> particular case of derivation" should be expressed using
>> rdfs:subClassOf.
>> + Since the prov-dm's definitions for revision, quotation,
>> and primary source mention that they are "particular
>> case[s] of derivation", then it follows that each should
>> be subclasses in the PROV-O encoding. We changed PROV-O
>> to include these three classes as a subclass of Derivation.
>> + The WG aggress with the reviewer that "a kind of" is a
>> more natural phrasing than "a particular case", and so we
>> have adopted it as suggested.
>> o On the phrasing of definitions:
>> + It was pointed out that the definitions for
>> "{Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence" are inconsistent with
>> that of their parent class "Influence".
>> + The source of this inconsistency is that
>> {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence are not defined by
>> prov-dm, but by prov-o as artifacts of encoding prov-dm's
>> model into the paradigm of OWL (i.e., the use of the
>> qualification pattern to describe binary relations).
>> + The inconsistent definitions were "demoted" to
>> rdfs:comments because they focus too heavily on the RDF
>> and OWL paradigm and not enough on how they are
>> expressing the abstract model of prov-dm.
>> + New definitions were created to align with their parent
>> class, with a focus on how the classes are expressing the
>> abstract model of prov-dm.
>> o On the inconsistency of subclasses according to "general
>> understanding of the english terms":
>> + The reviewer points out that the definitions of
>> Influence, EntityInfluence, and Start illustrate an
>> inconsistency: "influence is a capacity, an entity
>> influence is a provider (of descriptions) and a start is
>> a "when" (a time)".
>> + The WG acknowledges that the definitions as shown support
>> this concern.
>> + The inconsistency between Influence and its immediate
>> subclasses {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence is addressed
>> by the response to the earlier comment ("phrasing of
>> definitions").
>> + To address the inconsistency between {Influence,
>> {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence} and {Start,End},
>> PROV-DM updated the definitions for Start and End:
>> # /Start is when an activity is deemed to have been
>> started by an an entity, known as trigger . The
>> activity did not exist before its start. Any usage,
>> generation, or invalidation involving an activity
>> follows the activity's start. A start may refer to a
>> trigger entity that set off the activity, or to an
>> activity, known as starter , that generated the
>> trigger./ ref
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1e5d261d1c85/model/prov-dm.html#term-Start>
>> # /End is when an activity is deemed to have been ended
>> by an entity, known as trigger . The activity no
>> longer exists after its end. Any usage, generation,
>> or invalidation involving an activity precedes the
>> activity's end. An end may refer to a trigger entity
>> that terminated the activity, or to an activity,
>> known as ender that generated the trigger./ ref
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1e5d261d1c85/model/prov-dm.html#concept-end>
>> * References:
>> * Changes to the document:
>> o prov-dm updated the definitions
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/363ce30cec66> for revision,
>> quotation, and primary source to reinforce that each is a
>> relation.
>> o prov-o changed
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/337e097e37e9> to add axioms:
>> + prov:Revision rdfs:subClassOf prov:Derivation .
>> + prov:PrimarySource rdfs:subClassOf prov:Derivation .
>> + prov:Quotation rdfs:subClassOf prov:Derivation .
>> o prov-o "demoted" the original definitions of
>> {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence to rdfs:comments.
>> o prov-o created new definitions for
>> {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence to align with their parent
>> class definition.
>> o prov-o removed existing comments on
>> {Entity,Agent,Activity}Influence that were very similar to
>> the new "prov-dm centric" definitions. The removed comments
>> had more of an OWL flavor to them instead of an abstract
>> flavor. For example, the following comment was removed:
>> + "ActivityInfluence is intended to be a general subclass
>> of Influence of an Activity. It is a superclass for more
>> specific kinds of Influences (e.g. Generation,
>> Communication, and Invalidation)." in favor of the
>> definition "ActivitiyInfluence is the capacity an
>> activity to have an effect on the character, development,
>> or behavior of another by means of generation,
>> invalidation, communication, or other."
>> o The latest draft
>> <http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o> of the PROV-O
>> html document reflects the definitions changed in the PROV-O
>> OWL file:
>> + http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#EntityInfluence,
>> + http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#ActivityInfluence,
>> + http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#AgentInfluence
>> o PROV-DM's new definition for Start
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1e5d261d1c85/model/prov-dm.html#term-Start> ->
>> PROV-O's new definition for Start
>> <http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Start>
>> o PROV-DM's new definition for End
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1e5d261d1c85/model/prov-dm.html#concept-end> ->
>> PROV-O's new definition for End
>> <http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#End>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-552 (subclass-prov-o): Check subclass definitions in
>>> prov-o [Ontology]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
>>>
>>> Raised by: Paul Groth
>>> On product: Ontology
>>>
>>> See email from Alan Ruttenberg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 14:47:57 UTC