Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2012, at 18:15, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> We have a number of possibilities for qualified Membership. None
> seems particularly good.
> 
> 1.  Membership is an Influence and a Derivation.
>      Some F2F3 participants seemed to be against membership as
>      derivation.
> 
> 2. Membership is an Influence and not a Derivation
>     
>      I feel that this is not realistic.  To me, all forms of influence
>      between two entities are derivations.
> 
>      It would also be surprising that a concept that was about
>      to be dropped from the provenance model, is in fact a primitive
>      form of influence, not expressible differently.
> 
> 3. Membership is still qualified, but not an Influence.
>      This would break the prov-o design consistency.
> 
> 4. Membership should not be qualified.



This was the direction that I thought we went.

Tim



>       Some wanted to keep it qualified.
> 
> 5.  ... drop membership ... timeout!
> 
> Luc
> 
> 
> On 11/07/12 21:54, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> 
>> Luc,
>> 
>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the updated membership.
>>> 
>>> We do have misalignment between provo and prov-dm. 
>>> And I don't know how to solve it.
>>> 
>>> In prov-dm, membership is not a subtype of influence.  
>>> I recall explicitly some F2F3 participants didn't want membership as
>>> a form of derivation. I am not sure what their view would be about influence.
>>> 
>>> If the group agrees that membership *is* a kind of influence,
>> 
>> I think it's reasonable to say that an element of a set influences the set.
>> 
>>> I don't know
>>> where Influence should go in prov-dm, since it would no longer belong to 
>>> component 3.
>>> 
>>> If the group decides that membership *is* not a kind of influence, can you still
>>> express Membership using the qualified pattern ... without influence?
>> 
>> 
>> To do so will lose a lot of design consistency.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hhhhmmm?
>>> 
>>> What ever the decision ... more editing in perspective :-(
>>> Sorry about that.
>> 
>> :-/
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/07/12 18:15, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> prov-wg,
>>>> 
>>>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
>>>> 
>>>> now has the qualified membership terms (I added IncompleteCollection, which we haven't discussed before).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The ontology in it's usual place:
>>>> 
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The examples need to be reviewed and updated. Any pointers to flaws would be appreciated.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>>> send a link and I'll try to look at it later today
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/07/2012 14:31, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I put qualified membership back into the OWL file.
>>>>>> I need to regenerate the HTML and will check through the update today.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you can take a look and provide any early feedback, I'd appreciate it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Hi Tim
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I understood [1] as take the 'dictionary' concepts and move them in a separate document,
>>>>>>> and keep the rest unchanged.  We had just been through a round of discussion, for
>>>>>>> which there seems to be agreement on Collection, EmptyCollection and the membership
>>>>>>> as currently described in the dm.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree though that it is a good idea to change the name to hadMembers or similar.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22#resolution_2
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:39 PM
>>>>>>> To: Luc Moreau
>>>>>>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last   call [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:05 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> ... and no qualified form for membership.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dont' we want subtyping and identification ?
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> I never got the impression that qualified membership was part of what "stayed in" during our F2F vote.
>>>>>>> We continually said "Collection and hadMember", and never mentioned "qualifiedMembership and Membership".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, what was the intent of the group?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or, does DM intrinsically connect these and I just misinterpreted?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2012 09:02 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It seems there is another non-alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a prov:EmptyCollection class in the ontology?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 07/04/2012 03:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team, again,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Find below some specific comments about the provo document.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the extensive work!
>>>>>>>>>> It needs some polishing, but the majority of it, can happen after LC.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Answer to your questions:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - Minor Issues in the ontology raised in my previous message
>>>>>>>>>> - Definition alignment, and make sure that example don't use constructs incorrectly (e..g hadRole)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - Yes, though I couldn't follow the scenario anymore without a picture. Can a picture be added, with the style adopted by other documents
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - See comment below.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Specific comments:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Section 1
>>>>>>>>>> - owl-rl ->  orl-rl ++
>>>>>>>>>> - para 3: provdm introduces a MINIMAL set of concepts ... delete MINIMAL
>>>>>>>>>> - "... which facilitate a fixed interpretation and use of the prov data model concepts based on the formal semantics of owl2: " delete
>>>>>>>>>> - reference to xml-schema should be to xml-schema11 (owl2 automatically switched to xml-schema11)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> section 2:
>>>>>>>>>> - "the terms in this category ARE APPLIED IN the same way ..." not sure what this mean.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> section 3.1:
>>>>>>>>>> - "the starting point category is a small COLLECTION ..." to avoid confusion, use SET instead.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - definitions entity/activity/etc need updating
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - "In this case, the Agent that influenced an Activity or Entity prov:actedOnBehalfOf another Agent that MAY HAVE HAD LESS INFLUENCE, but still bears some responsibility for the resulting Activity or Entity."   I am not sure we should say this at all.  The agent may or may not have had more or less influence.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "example.org" claiming to be http://example.org# ->  http://example.org/# ?   everywhere
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - example after fig 1: it would be nice to see a "prov-style" picture
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - example 2 (agent derek) ... it was suggested for prov-dm that
>>>>>>>>>> examples should be described in past tense. It should be done here
>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - i don't understand wy ex:post9821v1 is a specialization of ex:post9821,
>>>>>>>>>> I can see it's an alternate. (in example code and in text)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - inmediately->immediately
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - "Since the provenance produced by the activities of Derek and Monica correspond to different user views, the system automatically publish it in different prov:Bundles (ex:bundlePost and ex:bundlePost1)." I don't understand.  It is part of the scenario? or is part of prov?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - I am lost in the example without a picture
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - Suggestion: number examples
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - an example still has prov:hasAnnotation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - "and all the data related to the post is lost. " permanently?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - example: bundles have not been used, so what is their point?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - figure 3: can we keep the conventions used elsewhere: agent is represented by pentagon.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - comments in some of the example (e.g. qualified usage) go beyond the box, into the margin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - cross referencing, I am not against it, I am concern about the additional space it takes.
>>>>>>>>>> Can it be folded in the title section?
>>>>>>>>>> It's probably too early at this stage to link to constraints, though
>>>>>>>>>> this would be valuable once the prov-constraints document is stable.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - examples: dererk ->  dereck
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - examples: to save space, can we define all prefixes upfront and avoid repeating them
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:wasDerivedFrom contains definition of entity, and not of derivation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Bundle: the text talks about account
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Bundle: maybe should state the purpose: provenance of provenance
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:alternateOf: contains definition of software agent
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -<>  prov:wasDerivedFrom<  .... dm ...>   :
>>>>>>>>>> I guess it's always good to eat our own dog food, but I think this complicates
>>>>>>>>>> the examples.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:invalidatedAtTime the painter seem to be destroyed in 2012???
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:mentionOf/specializationOf: have software agent as definition.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:value:  "The main value  ... of a STRUCTURED value."
>>>>>>>>>> What is structured, here?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:wasInvalidatedBy example:
>>>>>>>>>> Is it right to say swissair_flight_111_crash prov:used<http//db.... swissair_flight_111>?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Influence and its subclasses: can they be used alone without a concrete  influence?
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't the text say something and RECOMMEND the use of subclasses?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Communication is not allowed in the domain of atLocation (see
>>>>>>>>>> example for prov:Communication)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - typo: prov:Actvity in example with policySale
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - Delegation is not in the domain of hadRole (see insuranceAgent_Frank)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - example of derivation goes into margin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - EntityInvolvment: comments that appear in the example should be given in the narrative.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - Quotation no longer has hadQuoter and hadQuoted in prov-dm
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Revision, the binary wasAttributedTo is incorrectly qualified by an Association
>>>>>>>>>> instead of Attribution
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - example for prov:hadGeneration
>>>>>>>>>> has a qulaifiedDerivation,
>>>>>>>>>>  dont' you need to specifiy influencer entity?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -  no role allowed in attribution
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> :nationalRegionsList
>>>>>>>>>>  a prov:Entity;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:qualifedAttribution [
>>>>>>>>>>     a prov:Attribution;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:agent   :civil_action_group;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:hadRole :owner;
>>>>>>>>>>  ]
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - no role in delegation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> :chauffeur
>>>>>>>>>>  a prov:Person;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:actedOnBehalfOf :celebrity-in-car;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:qualifiedDelegation [
>>>>>>>>>>     a prov:Delegation;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:agent   :celebrity-in-car;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:hadRole :employer; # The celebrity employed the chauffeur during the enforcement.
>>>>>>>>>>  ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:qualifiedDerivation
>>>>>>>>>> :bar_chart
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:wasDerivedFrom :aggregatedByRegions;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:qualifiedDerivation [
>>>>>>>>>>     a prov:Derivation;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:hadGeneration :illustration;
>>>>>>>>>>  ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't you link to :aggregatedByRegions;?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - qualifiedInvalidation: check time of crash
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:qualifiedQuotation uses quoter/quotedAgent
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - qualified source
>>>>>>>>>> :temperatureDisplay
>>>>>>>>>>  a prov:Entity;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:hadOriginalSource :sensorReading20120510;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:qualifiedSource [
>>>>>>>>>>     a prov:Source;
>>>>>>>>>>     prov:entity         :sensorReading20120510;
>>>>>>>>>>  ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a RECOMMENDation to use the qualified pattern only if it adds new information?
>>>>>>>>>> It does not do it here.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - qualified usage
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> :newsPublication
>>>>>>>>>>  a prov:Activity;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:used :tsunami_image;
>>>>>>>>>>  prov:qualifiedUsage [
>>>>>>>>>>     a prov:Usage;
>>>>>>>>>>     :hasCopyrightPermission :licensedUse;
>>>>>>>>>>     :hasOwner               :reuters;
>>>>>>>>>>  ];
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Need to add prov:influencer tsunami_image
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> prov:ProvenanceService
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hasAnchor  prov:hasProvenance  prov:hasProvenanceService  prov:provenanceUriTemplate
>>>>>>>>>> Should not be described in the html document, but in the paq document.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -  appendix
>>>>>>>>>> # Instead of defining their own, modelers should use the
>>>>>>>>>> # recommended inverse local name within the PROV namespace:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This is confusing. So, it would be better to say that they are defined in prov namespace
>>>>>>>>>> though not defined in prov-o.html ( a bit like paq stuff). It would be informative.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - OWL2 primer should be normative reference
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 10:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for producing the document. Here are a few comments on the ontology, before I start reading
>>>>>>>>>>> the html document.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you removed too many of the property characteristics, some of which are prov-o specific
>>>>>>>>>>> (as opposed to being prov-constraints specific).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise,  I think the ontology is aligned with prov-dm. I think that Influence and influencer are
>>>>>>>>>>> quite nice!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. hadRole: why is domain defined as intersection of Influence and six of its subclasses.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Why not the subclasses directly?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional?
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a qualified Influence
>>>>>>>>>>> for multiple subjects. This is not intended.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional before, but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>  this characteristic was incorrectly removed.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per
>>>>>>>>>>> qualified pattern instance, isn't there.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Likewise:
>>>>>>>>>>> hadPlan: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadUsage: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadGeneration: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadActivity: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  As per prov-dm.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -->  It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, endedAtTime,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>>>>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The document is at:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to the following questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team .
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>       
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     
>>>>   
>> 

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 23:33:08 UTC