PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-05-07

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 19:19, 7 May 2012 by Tlebo (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Information

prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon

Attendees

  • Tim
  • Daniel
  • Stephan
  • Satya 
  • Paul
  • Khalid (regrets)
  • Jun (regrets)
  • Stian (regrets)

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

Khalid

  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267 annotate subproperties
    • The sub-properties were annotated to justify the fact that they are sub-properties. (I sent an email to Tim and Paolo to ask if the related issues 267 can be closed, I haven't received an answer for that).
    • TODO: did he commit them
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 turtle examples in cross ref
    • Khalid made sure that people added all the TTL examples required in the cross references section.
    • Tim: are all comments cleared? Still has yellow and red in spreadsheet.
    • TODO: Tim to review Satya's
    • Tim: we can show Involvement -- how wasConductedBy is understood generically in PROV.
    • Daniel: possible attributes of OriginalSource
    • Tim: I've noticed this same "finding attributes" problem with most of the Involvements.
    • Paul: confidence values on the relation.

Daniel

Jun

Stephan

  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/268 two level ontology
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/363 prov:value collision
    • Stephan: if we break collections to a separate document, then do we use a different namespace?
    • Paul: group all collection info (dm, prov-o) into one document. We've already resolved to use one namespace.
    • Paul: regardless of what document, it's all part of the recommendation.
    • provc:value is clearly not prov:value
    • Tim: use prov-collections as an example of extending prov
    • Stephan: alternate option is to rename object proprty prov:value to prov:keyPairValue or similar
    • Stephan: PROPOSAL: rename datatype property prov:value to prov:content?
    • Paul: too many namespaces causes confusion for developers
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/338 prov:agent vs hadPlan naming CLOSED

Stian

Satya

  • For ProvRDF issues, move RAISED issues to either POSTPONED, OPEN, or CLOSED
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9
    • Tim: be ruthless on POSTPONE
  • For Involvement - use non PROV properties (not use specific sub-type of involvement) 

Tim

seed issues

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

Stephan: Does the removal of responsibilities from dervication deprecate prov:wasApprovedBy? Tim: yes.

New issues

  • https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/372 qualified prop chains
    • (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used .
    • Tim tried to add "prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity -> prov:used", but Protege cut off "prov:entity"
    • prov:qualifiedUsage o prov:entity
    • done: Stephan will send link.
    • Property chains Allow transitivity across multiple properties. For the currently selected property prop3, the editor syntax is prop1 o prop2 [o ...] -> prop3 which means if a prop1 b and b prop2 c then a prop3 c.
    • Looks like it works :-) -Tim

AOB