Re: Draft comments for the Organization Ontology LC (Deadline Midnight GMT November 24)

I'm fine with this.

Paul


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please find below the draft response that Luc and I prepared for the
> last call for comments by the eGov WG regards to the Organization
> Ontology (http://www.w3.org/News/2012.html#entry-9606).
>
> It will become the group response unless we hear objections by Saturday
> Midnight GMT, November 24th.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> -- Jun
>
>
>
> ====================================================================================
>
> Dear Organization Ontology Editors,
>
> The PROV WG reviewed the part of the document about extension to PROV.
> Generally speaking we agree with your following extensions:
>
>   - org:originalOrganization as a subproperty of prov:used,
>   - org:resultedFrom as a subproperty of prov:wasGeneratedBy
>   - org:ChangeEvent as a subclass of prov:Activity
>
> In addition, we would like to draw your attention to the concept of
> derivation [1] in PROV, which refers to a transformation of an entity
> into another, an update of an entity resulting in a new one, or the
> construction of a new entity based on a pre-existing entity. Based on
> some general knowledge, one might expect that a new organization should
> be a derivation of the old one, by some sort of transformation or update
> or simply setting up a new entity. But does this indeed make sense with
> the use cases that you consider?
>
> This is a strong albeit useful assertion, enabling you to trace the
> history of an organization. However, the semantics of the PROV model
> does not let you infer this relationship by the combination of
> generation and usage, i.e.,  from the following triples:
>
> ex:o2  org:resultedFrom          ex:a1
> ex:a1  org:originalOrganization  ex:o1
>
> The PROV model regards ex:o1 and ex:o2 as totally unrelated, unless
> their relationship is explicitly stated otherwise. If the definition of
> derivation does fit your use case,  making use of this relationship in
> your ontology will make it much more in line with the upcoming
> provenance recommendation. So it is a matter to have a think about what
> you intend to achieve by using the prov:used and prov:wasGeneratedBy
> properties. If you want to include derivation in your ontology, then we
> make the following to suggestions:
>
> 1. We RECOMMEND that ex:o2 prov:wasDerivedFrom ex:o1 be explicitly
> asserted. (or a subproperty in the org: namespace)
> 2. Alternatively, you could add a property chain
>        org:resultedFrom followed by org:originalOrganization =>
> prov:WasDerivedFrom
>
>
> The second point is that the PROV model comes with a set of implicit
> semantics constraints (in its constraint document [2]). Although these
> constraints are not reflected in the PROV-O, we expect that a provenance
> validator, compliant with  this document, will validate provenance
> statements on the Web. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to take a pause
> and think whether the intention behind your ontology might lead to any
> violation to relevant constraints.
>
> For example, the generation-precedes-usage constraint [3] requires that
> the event when a new organization was generated must precede the event
> when the same organization was used in the process of generating another
> organization.
>
>
> Finally, we would also like to bring your attention to the concept of
> invalidation. In the PROV data model we say that an entity can have a
> lifetime. And the invalidation is the start of the destruction,
> cessation, or expiry of an existing entity by an activity [4].
>
> If this concept is adopted in the Organization Ontology, then you will
> be able to specify more precisely that the cease-to-exist of the old
> organization when a new organization was built up. Might this be helpful
> to your use cases?
>
> Please be aware that by using this concept, there are several related
> constraints to bear in mind. An example is the
> usage-precedes-invalidation constraint [5], which means that the event
> when an old organization ceased to exist must follow the event when it
> was used in the org:ChangeEvent activity.
>
> We, the WG as a whole, will be happy to help you with any other issue
> related to PROV.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Jun, on behalf of the PROV WG
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Derivation
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/
> [3]
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#generation-precedes-usage
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Invalidation
> [5]
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#usage-precedes-invalidation
>
>
>
>