PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-06-11

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Information

prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon

Attendees

  • Tim
  • Daniel
  • Paolo
  • Jun
  • Stian
  • Stephan
  • Khalid

regrets:

  • Satya
  • Paul

Agenda

For the issues that you are assigned:

  • describe the original concern
  • describe any perspectives already expressed
  • recommend next step, or propose a solution

ISSUES

Paolo

To resolve remaining issues with collections in DM. Here is the edited text following the proposal below: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component6

Here is relevant text for the proposal:

Luc's suggestion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0224.html 

... which is analogous to my "prov:hadMember with domain Collection and range Entity", which gets reused on Dictionaries.

as per Tim's suggestion:

"I would think that avoiding Insertion, Removal, and Membership for the general Collection would be a reasonable shortcut, if it meant that we could avoid proliferating (doubling) the number of terms (DictionaryInsertion, CollectionInsertion, etc.).

I think "leaving collection at prov:Collection and hadMember", and doing everything else as already is (Insertion, Removal, Membership) with Dictionary seems reasonable."

  • Paolo:
  • ... completeness. On Friday, tried to clarify what complete means, and to include Collections
  • ... thinks it is close to completion. nothing controversial, right?
  • ... generic relations didn't relate generic collections.
  • ... http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component6 addresses it.
  • ... permits empty collection and collection types.
  • ... added membership, and makes it consistent (only membership at this level)
  • ... extensions to collections, gives dictionary and is a specific type of collection.
  • ... memberOf applies to entities of Dictionary
  • ... how does prov-o
  • Tim: likes "if it is present and set to true, then c is believed to include all and only the members specified in the entity-set; "
  • Stian: reads well. integrates well. no more comments.
  • Paolo: when a conflict happens, it is out of scope.
  • Daniel: will try to read it.

Stephan

  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267 - justify all subproperty assertions (of tracedTo)
    • 2nd pass?
    • (Stephan) I somehow missed Tim's response to my first pass, will read and make 2nd pass
    • Stephan: prov:category, prov:component
    • ... no links. TODO: use URI instead of the literal strings.

Khalid

Jun

  • Review Dani's action points re. issue 381

TODO (ongoing)

Stian

  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/406 
    • Delegation wrong direction.
    • Stian: confused his colleague. Opposite direction.
    • ... with name change, it is now confusing.
    • ... hadDelegate to be the primary, but that doens't follow the back in time rule.
    • Stian: proposal is to rename.

Tim

Actual modeling
Awaiting DM
  • https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/392 hasProvenanceIn / isReferencedBy / contextualizationOf
    • Dani: a corner case? Could leave it out. Overcomplicates the model.
    • ... dropping it would make it simple.
    • Khalid: agree. Dropping would simplify. If included, would be useful?
    • Jun: started well, but the semantics is becoming too complicated.
      • I think it's a shame that we can't provide this *useful* property just because we are making it too complicated, thinking too much about it.
    • Tim: one class and two properties added to PROV-O
    • Khalid: it is complex to understand.
    • TODO: Tim to Luc to make it clear that the discussion to conclude its fate, NEW thread.
Editorial
  • prov:qualifiedForm - comment does not reflect "pointing at both" - Stephan.
    • prov:qualifiedFrom should change 'prov:Involved subclass' -> 'prov:Involvement subclass'
    • This is an issue with prov:wasTracedTo and all its sub-properties.
Someone please take
Backburner
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 [good] turtle examples in cross ref
    • This is an ongoing activity. Anyone up for reviewing and enhancing the examples?
    • Stian: html and owl are alternatives. HTML comes from owl.
    • .. not everytihng in the owl is reflected in the HTML or opposite
    • ... views them as alternateOf
    • Jun: can we say the owl is for machines?:) html is for human.
    • Stephan: two representations of the same resource, the resource is the rec.
    • Khalid: use it in the eg of alternateOf.
    • Tim: are we okay that the HTML doesn't reflect "every triple" in OWL.
Fading usefulness

Daniel

  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/381 Jun's feedback on 3.2 expanded terms
    • Daniel: haven't gotten to it. Will do by Thursday. Tomorrow morning.
    • ... removed the Note, added missing Location etc. All there now.
    • TODO: SoftwareAgent is missing in examples.
    • TODO: Tim to regenerate prov-o on aquarius.
    • Dani: spacing problems
    • TODO: Dani to email Tim with list of "outdated" prov-o html aspects.

Satya

AOB

How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o?