- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:47:34 +0000
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Since there was no objection I have closed this issue. --James On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:44 PM, James Cheney wrote: > This issue concerning comments about prov-o before its FPWD was raised (inadvertently?) against the formal semantics, not the ontology. > > Is it still open? If so, I would like to re-assign it to prov-o. > > If the PROV-O comments have been addressed but there are remaining issues relevant to prov-sem then I would like to close this and create new issues for them. > > If there is no further discussion by next week's teleconference then I will close it. > > --James > > On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> >> PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/155 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: Formal Semantics >> >> >> - Abstract: >> " The PROV ontology is specialized to create domain-specific >> provenance ontologies that model the provenance information specific >> to different applications" >> Well, the charter says that the focus is on inter-changing provenance >> information, and we will be application agnostic. It's therefore surprising >> that this statement and associated section is part of the normative specification. >> >> Note that similar comments were already raised in ISSUE-117 >> >> - Abstract: >> "The PROV ontology supports a set of entailments based on OWL2 formal >> semantics and provenance specific inference rules. " >> There was a request to be precise about the lightweight nature of this >> ontology. >> >> -Needs a status of this document (SOTD) >> >> - 1.Introduction >> "This ontology specification provides the foundation for implementation of provenance applications in different domains using the PROV ontology for representing, exchanging, and integrating provenance information. " >> I believe we should only focus on exchanging provenance information. Our message is not about >> how application should implement provenance. >> >> "this document forms a framework for provenance information interchange AND MANAGEMENT " -> drop management >> >> "Thus, the PROV ontology is expected to be both directly usable in applications as WELL AS SERVE AS A REFERENCE MODEL FOR CREATION OF DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PROVENANCE ONTOLOGY " >> -> this seems to go against the spirit of the charter >> >> - 1.1 >> "This document is intended for provide an understanding of the PROV ontology and how IT CAN BE USED BY DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS TO REPRESENT THEIR PROVENANCE INFORMATION." -> again, against the charter spirit. >> We should just restrict ourselves to exchange. >> >> - "... to facilitate standardization. " What do you mean? >> >> - 2.1 >> "he PROV Data Model [PROV-DM] uses an Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN) to describe the set of provenance terms that are used to construct the PROV ontology. There are a number of differences between the PROV-DM ASN and th" >> The prov-o document should not refer to prov-asn, but only prov-dm. >> >> - " the notion of "EXPRESSIONS" used in the " >> replace expression by record >> >> - " PROV-DM discusses the use of "Qualifier" to as " >> it no longer does!, just attributes. >> >> - What is the purpose of the note: "In addition, RDF is strictly monotonic and "...it cannot express closed-world assumptions, local default preferences, and several other commonly used non-monotonic constructs."[RDF-MT], but the PROV-DM seems to introduce the notion of non-monotonic assertions through "Account" construct [PROV-DM]. For example, Account description in PROV-DM states that it "It provides a scoping mechanism for expression identifiers and for some contraints (such as generation-unicity and derivation-use)." >> If accounts are to be mapped to named graphs, is prov-dm taking different assumptions than rdf? >> >> - 3.1.1: "An Entity REPRESENTS AN identifiable characterized thing" >> -> An Entity IS an identifiable characterized thing >> >> - The text still contains variables/names "pe" to denote activities >> >> - 3.1.5: ProvenanceContainer has become RecordContainer >> >> - "According to the definitions of ProvenanceContainer and Account, both contain a set of provenance assertions and have an identifier. Hence, ProvenanceContainer class can also be used to create instances of accounts." >> I was not necessarily expecting a RecordContainer/ProvenanceContainer to be modelled as a class. >> The record container contains prefix-namespace mapping, which in >> - rdf is typically contained in the RDF element >> - xml could be declared in the root document >> >> Accounts do not have prefix/namespace declarations. So it's strange to see that the same class is used. >> >> - issue-81 is closed pending review, why is it mentioned? >> >> - 3.1.6: the crime file example does not have location. It was >> incorrect of prov-dm to use the attribute location, it is instead >> path. >> >> - 3.1.7.1 Usage >> >> "The Usage class represents an n-ary property to capture qualifying >> information related to the the use, GENERATION, CONTROL, AND >> PARTICIPATION" ?????. >> >> >> - 3.2.1: "The wasGeneratedBy property links the Entity class with the Activity class." >> What does it express? That there exists at least one instance of a qualified generation between >> an entity and an activity, though this instance may not have been asserted. >> If is permitted for multiple of these instances (for an entity-activity pair) to exist. >> >> - 3.2.3: issue 42 is closed >> >> - 3.2.3 why cite issue 43? >> The only reason to cite it, is that you may want to say that a qualified derivation may need >> to be introduced if time is to be introduced. Otherwise, don't cite. >> >> - 3.2.4 >> why cite issue-122, 125 and 126? they are closed pending review >> >> - 3.2.4: >> prov-dm is in the process of changing the names >> >> >> - 3.2.7: "The hadPariticipant property links Entity class to Activity class, where Entity used or wasGeneratedBy Activity." this does not correspond to the definition. >> Note, term to be deprecated. >> >> >> - 3.2.8: what's the purpose of the note? this does not make sense according to prov-dm. >> >> - 3.2.9 wasControlledBy: whole terminology to be changed according to Yolanda's proposal. >> >> - 3.2.15: wasQuoteOf >> range should be entity (really, it's entity and optionally agent) >> >> -3.2.xxx hasQualifiedXXX >> do we really need to make the term qualified explicit >> >> -3.3: Note, how can you say that an agent can be a PE, when entity and activity are supposed to be disjoint. >> >> - Section 4, should only be informative. It should not be normative. >> Paul and I recommends that this section is moved into a separate document: best practice. >> >> - Lots of comments with section 5. >> Fundamentally, it is not clear what it is trying to achieve, since most constraints don't really seem >> to be addressed, or are no longer part of prov-dm. >> Paul and I recommends that this section is moved into a separate document too. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 09:48:13 UTC