PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-02-27
From Provenance WG Wiki
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-02-27
- time: 12pm ET, 5pm UK
- via Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 695 ("OWL")
- wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-27
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/pyxfy96751
- next meeting
- Luc (away and back)
- Deborah (also away and back)so away and back)
1) Responding to prov-o feedback process
- Meta: Daniel's ontology changing concerns.
- could we have a wiki page or another ontology where we gather the feedback and discuss it within the prov-o team before implementing to the ontology?
- Tim: should we prefer change or not? How to make changes?
- catalog of examples
- mapping issues - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/256 - changing namespace.
- ontology issues - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3
- who wants to look at the status of the issues.
- We have a Roled class. I don't remember having discussed this change.
- Instantaneous event: I'm ok with that, since we discussed it on moday.
- Activity is under "Durable". Why??
- qualified has dissapeared, and we have "involved" range Element AND Involvement? (I think this is a typo, it should be the union).
- I'm still unhappy with the TemporalEntity name. What about just "Time", or "Temporal"?
- checking RL compliance http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RL_compliance
- Stian's gist
5) PROV-O HTML organization
responding to feedback
Khalid: owl file was updated but not announced in email.
TODO: Tim to process the feedback inbox. raise each one as an issue. Announce to wg that we added it to the ISSUES and please let us know if what they raised is NOT in the tracker.
Luc and Paolo tackle DM into different sections.
Daniel: (choppy audio)
Or send an email+a deadline vote?
Khalid: annotate in subject that it indicated prov-o change. Tim: add an ISSUE for each
PROPOSED: annote email subject with [PROV-O change] and ensure there is an original ISSUE that the change is trying to address (mention it in the email)
addressing current issues
we need to review what issues exist and need to be closed. We need someone to push to close them.
TODO: Daniel will look through (not so much this week though)
Tim accidentally merged qualified and invovled (he thoguht it was qualifiable)
Durable - why?
Paul was using RL checker: http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/validator/
Stian was OWLAPI
TODO: Stian to commit a RL checker jar.
TODO: group to help accumulate restrictions that RL has at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RL_compliance
TODO: include the RL issue https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/265 "ISSUE-265" in any email announcing a change to the ontology that required RL
Khalid added a table http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Characteristics_of_Object_Properties and wants others to review.
ISSUE: stephen concerned about property chains Stephen's feedback: "By consistently using properties with generic names (prov:qualified, prov:entity) to link Involvements, it will be impossible to define the property chains that would enable the direct properties (prov:used, prov:wasGeneratedBy, ...) to be inferred from them. To do that, I think there need to be subproperties which are unique to the different subclasses of Involvement. It appears that these have only just been removed."
Stephen's feedback might be in this email: http://www.w3.org/mid/F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93EA7191@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk
property chains are not urgent, we need to focus on getting the concepts.
examples that cover DM
hand crafted ASN, tool to convert.
TODO: Tim to propose a design for the wg to collect ASN examples.
Luc: primer examples can be put in.
Luc: Ivan indicated that OPM-V or FOAF had good documentation that we should try to reflect.
TODO: Khalid propose structure TODO: group to find out if any of these were generated by a tool.
Luc and Khalid, splitting ontology
We will discuss the timeline on Thursday.