Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-04-23
From Provenance WG Wiki
Contents
Meeting Information
prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-04-23
- time: 12pm ET, 5pm GMT
- via Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 695 ("OWL")
- wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-04-23
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/oLCVAxu06c
- next meeting
Attendees
- Tim
- Khalid
- Daniel
- Jun
- Stephan
- Stian
- Satya (may regret)
Agenda
Around the room
Let's review what each of us did last week so that we are all up to speed. Please add points that I've forgotten.
- Daniel:
- updated the expanded terms section.
- Stian:
- argued for hadQuoter
- pulled out narrative code examples into eg-26
- Satya:
- Reviewed property chain thread http://www.w3.org/mid/F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93010D9F9C@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk
- Jun:
- on travel, but still managed to
- updated all the annotations to properties in the ontology. By the end of April 20, every term in the ontology was annotated using rdfs:comment property
- write a SOTD section, which doesn't seem to have been integrated in the current draft yet
- Khalid:ok
- committed examples
- Stephan:
- Nothing yet
- Tim:
- Added prov-o rdfa to prov-o html
- renamed Collection to Dictionary, added Invalidation
PENDING ISSUES
none.
OPEN ISSUES
PROV-O HTML http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
[Are they all necessary for the upcoming public release? Are there anything that are absolutely important for the upcoming release?] @Jun
None are necessary for the upcoming release. This is looking beyond the public release. -Tim
What about the examples? To me, it would be nice to have them for the next release. - Jun
- 349 from many, "cross section needs examples"
- Do we work with one story for the examples or do people just do what they want? -Jun
- @Jun, I think that we should use the examples in section 3 as much as possible, this way we minimize the number of examples that the reader has to grasp
- +1 Jun
- 1/104 (0.96%) complete (now 10%)
- announced at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Apr/0214.html
- change files in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf
- Jun: we should add as many examples as possible.
- ... the rdfs:comments should.
- Tim: change each file from "TODO" to "will be done by XXX (e.g. Khalid)
- Daniel: we should review what is committed.
- Stian: we want general guidance
- Daniel: Expanded terms (ongoing). I would like someone to review the examples on the html doc. (will be reviewed by Jun tomorrow the 24th of April)
- I'll do as much as I can today.(Dani) YES, qualified terms.
- @Khalid, yes I wasn't planning on covering all :)
- Stephan: willing to take an assignment
- Tim: I'll make assignments and send them out after this meeting.
- Tim TODO: review comments that Jun added.
- 128 from Paul, "nongeographic locations"
- Asked Paul what he needs to get it closed.
- Daniel's example shows file path, Madrid, and a blog URL. (which should be a reasonable variety)
- I never read them yet, so I can't comment - Jun
- 308 from Tim, "w3c style" (yes Stian is the guru) haha, and that's khalid giving stian additional work. (And i think he is happy to be assigned with anything:)
- http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
- ctrl-alt-shift-s : which to pick? Save as HTML, Save as HTML (source), Save as XHTML, Save as XHTML (source)
- http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/spwd/2012-04-23-validating/prov-o.html
- http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=checker
- TODO: Stian to look it over.
- 334 from Jun, "qualification pattern not defined"
- Suggestions from Satya?
- Jun: give a definition. expect to see to express.
- Stian: almost every PROV-O relation can also be expressed in a qualified pattern. Can add attriutues, time.
- Jun: make it clear what the pattern is used form.
- 338 from Tim, "how to explain prov:{activity,agent,dictionary,entity} vs. prov:had{Activity,Generation,Plan,Quoted,Quoter,Role,Usage} better"?
- prov:involvee could be confused with prov:involved. Rename to prov:object ?
- what is confusing?
- Tim: reification's rdf:object
- qualifiedGeneration [ atTime ]
- Stian: waht about prov:qualifiedGeneration [ a prov:Generation; prov:activity ]; .
- Stian: waht about prov:qualifiedGeneration [ a prov:Generation; prov:qualifiedActivity ]; .
- Khalid: but what does "qualified" mean?
- Tim:
- Stian: My proposal used the same qualified* on both left hand side and right hand side - showing how they are related.. using only had* form on rhs might break this symmetry (slightly)
- Daniel: but then, people will ask what is the difference between hadQualifiedActivity and hadActivity. No?
- Daniel: Why don't we just say that the "had" is for optional things? (Like the hadActivity in derivation), while the "activity" means that the activity is not optional.
- Stian: I think that would apply well to most terms we have already, +1
- 344 from Jun, "definitions in cross reference section"
- Jun added rdfs:comments, so mostly handled for now
- prov:definitions are missing on properties, Tim needs to work cross-reference.py and annotations to avoid copy/paste syndrome.
- 350 from Tim, "domain unions fail in cross reference"
ProvRDF http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9
- Satya to review and clean up (since most of them are his)
Ontology http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3
- 83 from many, "define inverses"
- We agreed last week to maintain a separate file for inverses named.
- Appendix listing inverses names will be added to next prov-o html draft.
- Tim built automation around "prov:used prov:inverse "wasUsedBy"^^rdf:PlainLiteral"
- REQUEST: someone to add these annotations to OWL file?
- 89 from Luc, "entity attributes"
- This is _very_ old (characterizing attributes in September), but Luc still thinks it needs to be addressed.
- 267 from Tim, "justify all subproperty assertions with annotations"
- Protege's "@", gave DM URL, date, and quote that justifies it. Does not change RL-ness. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/4a37e2659b63
- REQUEST: any takers on justifying the rest?
- 268 from Luc, "two layer ontology?"
- 276 from Tim, "term coverage"
- 281 from Tim, "http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# is still not dereferencable"
- REQUEST: someone to help Paul with the http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# page and conneg?
- 336 from many, "incorporate review feedback"
- 348 from many, "prov-o naming conventions"
- This is the "do it" side of the "document it" aspect in 338
- 363 from Tim, "prov:value (on KeyEntityPair) and prov:value (rdf:value)
- naming clash. Rename prov:value to prov:keyValue?
seed issues
- How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o?
AOB
- Raised by Jun: Can we talk about when or whether we will have snapshots for our ontology, like ProvenanceOntology-20120430.owl? Or achieve similar functionality via other mechanisms? I think it's important to have an ontology that is synchronized with each prov-o spec public release or even work draft.