- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:44:02 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|c7a3429085ec63ec6b2513f9c3131fc4o1J8i808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F4207D2>
Hi Satya I haven't had a chance to go through Stian's revised ontology, and study it. So, I am only answering a few points below On 02/19/2012 11:43 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi Luc, > Comments are interleaved: > > 1. > >>>> Usage >>>> --- misses a property hadActivity >>>> >> >> >> prov:hadQualifiedUsage stands in place of hadActivity >> >> these two properties are owl:inverseOf, but we are not defining >> hadActivity. >> we are using hadQualifiedUsage to point from the Activity to the >> Involvement to maintain Activities and Entitites and principle >> instances. >> >> I added this note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage >> >> >>> >>> I don't understand what you expect to change here. There is no >>> hadActivity construct in either PROV-O or PROV-DM, so I can't >>> just change the mapping to include this. >> >> The only requirement DM provides is that we associate the two, >> which we have done. >> > > Ultimately with the model, we support to views, relation oriented > or class oriented. > When you take the class oriented view, where you have a Usage > class, you want to be able to talk > about its activity (especially since this should be a functional > property). > > Prov-dm states that a usage has a constituent activity. > Why can't a property be defined as owl:inverseOf, as you > suggested, in the ontology? > >>> There is a link from the activity to the usage labeled >>> hadQualifiedUsage. The hadActivity link would be the inverse of >>> that. >> >> +1 >> >>> However, the edges here are meant to be consistent with the >>> direction "towards the past". >> >> In this case, it is to maintain the Activity as the "more >> principal" instance, which is done by making it the subject of >> the triple. >> I've jotted down some >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Mapping_goals >> >>> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with >>> hadActivity going in the reverse direction. >>> >>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a >>> hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities. >> >> If proposed, I say -1 >> > > I don't think the notion of 'principal' should be absolute. It > depends on what you are doing with the provenance, > and this is left to users. > > > Again, the current construct in owl file is "Usage (class) > ->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> Activity (class). > > Can you please clarify if you are suggesting that we introduce a new > property called hadActivity that is just an inverse of > hasQualifiedUsage (and does not capture any additional information)? > > ----------------------------------- > 2. > >>>> Bundle: not part of DM3? >>> >>> I don't understand what would address this issue. There is a >>> Bundle section that contains some discussion of Account and >>> RecordContainer. Since Account was put on the endangered >>> species list at F2F2, my impression was that they were not >>> required to be handled in the first draft of the mapping. >> >> Despite the "endangered species list", I put in a mapping for >> accounts with the expectation that "Account" would be renamed to >> "Bundle" (and with the hope that it would just be called >> "Provenance" because that is what it is...) >> >> @James, I need to add a fourth column of >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account but am fighting >> latex. >> Could you add the fourth column? >> >> "nil" in a new far left column, except for where "name" appears >> on the left. >> >> >> BTW, I added a prov:specializationOf triple and axiom to the >> mapping for accounts. sd:graph >> >> >>> >>> Please be more specific about what aspects of bundles you think >>> aren't handled here and should be. >>> >>> Proposal: Defer until status of bundles/accounts/record >>> containers is stable. >>> >>>> > So, this is resolved? > > > --------------------- > 3. > >>>> There is no time information associated with Entity in DM3 >>>> >>> >>> Correct, but I don't see what you think should change (in the >>> mapping, PROV-O, or PROV-DM). The rule for entity() records >>> does not link the entity to a time. It is possible to link any >>> Thing to a time, including an Entity, but so what? >>> >>> Proposal: No change. >> >> >> Agreed. What tidbit of what document leads to this question? >> >> > > The ontology allows for time to be associated with entities. > > Entity is not associated with Time anymore. > > But, can you please clarify whether DM will allow only Activity to be > associated with time, in other words Generation, Usage, etc. cannot be > associated with Time (else we will have to allow QualifiedInvolvement > and many - not all, of its subclasses to be associated with Time, > which will push prov-o out of RL profile)? See 4th bullet point in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#record-Generation Likewise, for Usage, etc. > > ------------------------ > 4. > >>>> Association: >>>> hadQualifiedAssociation property missing >> >> missing from where? >> >> it's at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association >> >> I see it in "now" in [ ] a prov:Entity; prov:specializationOf >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl> >> >> :hadQualifiedAssociation >> a owl:ObjectProperty ; >> rdfs:domain :Activity ; >> rdfs:range :Association . >> >> > It looks it was added, it's good. > > So, this point is resolved? > > ------------------------ > 5. > >>>> Association: >>>> hadQualifiedEntity has range Entity, >>>> but it should be Agent .... >>>> hadQualifiedAgent with range Agent, >> >> >> I added this extra triple and the corresponding axiom at >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association >> > Is it added to the ontology? > The mapping no longer needs to show hadQUalifiedEntity > > Agent is subclass of Entity, hence an application can specify an Agent > to be range of the hadQualifiedEntity property. Please clarify if you > are proposing creation of a new property called hadQualifiedAgent? > (though it should be defined outside of PROV) > > ------------------------ > 6. > >>>> Association >>>> --- misses a functional property hadActivity >>>> >>> >>> Same response as for Usage. >> >> +1 >> >> I added a note at >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association >> >> > > Same comment as above. I am OK with your suggestion to have these > in separate files if appropriate. > > I am not sure I understood - the current construct in owl ontology > "Association (class) -> hasQualifiedAssociation (property) -> Activity > (class)" models this information. > > What should change? > > ------------------------ > 7. > >>>> Association >>>> ---- adoptedPlan i would have thought it had to be functional >>> >>> This is a PROV-O issue. >>> >>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O. No change is needed to the mapping. >>> > The DM3 clearly states in Section 5.3.2.1, "An activity /may/ be > associated with multiple plans." > > So, we are consistent with DM3. 4th bullet point of 5.3.2.1 indicates a single plan, for a given association. The sentence you quote is indeed in the text, but is ambiguous. To be aligned with the 4th bullet point, it should be read: An activity /may/ be associated with multiple plans, by means of multiple association records. Luc > > ------------------------ > 8. > >>>> >>>> Delegation: what is it? >>>> is it what is called Responsibility Record in WD3? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure (didn't write this part), but I believe it is a >>> class that is populated by the identifiers of responsibility >>> records (as Usage for used, Generation for wasGeneratedBy). >>> This seems obvious from the way it is used in the rule, but >>> deserves explanation. >> >> >> I'd love to rename Delegation to Responsibility. Please let us do it. >> Added a note at >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Responsibility >> >> > Delegation has been renamed to Responsibility (we will discuss this > during our PROV-O call tomorrow for consensus). > > ------------------------ > 9. > >>>> No collection >>>> >>> >>> True, and the reason is the same as for Bundle - constructs that >>> were in-flux or endangered as of F2F2 were not expected to be >>> mapped. >>> >>> Proposal: Defer until collections stabilize. >> > I guess this point is also resolved? > > ------------------------ > 10. > >>>> HadTemporalValue >>>> --- is not functional >>> >>> True, but this is a PROV-O issue. >>> >>> Proposal: Re-raise against Prov-O. No change needed to mapping. >>> >>>> --- has QualifiedInvolvement in its domain but >> >> >> I see that it has a domain of owl:Thing. >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl >> >> 168 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l168> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="hadTemporalValue"> >> >> 169 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l169> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/> >> >> 170 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l170> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en" >> >> 171 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l171> >has temporal value</rdfs:label> >> >> 172 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l172> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&owl;Thing"/> >> >> 173 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l173> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="Time"/> >> >> 174 <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl#l174> </owl:ObjectProperty> >> >> >> > > Which is too broad. > > > First, we need clarification as to whether DM will allow only Activity > to be associated with Time? > > > Best, > Satya > >> -Tim >> > > Luc > >>>> Association and Delegation don't have temporal information >>>> >>> >>> This is an example where the mapping may suggest changes to PROV-DM. >>> >>> It's true that in Prov-DM, these two events don't have temporal >>> information. Thus, in PROV-O, we could represent such >>> information that cannot be expressed in PROV-DM. But so what? >>> I don't think we agreed to the constraint that everything one >>> can express in PROV-O can also be expressed in PROV-DM; the goal >>> of the mapping was just to show how to express (almost) >>> everything in PROV-DM in RDF. >>> >>> If you think PROV-O should not be able to express times for >>> association and delegation because PROV-DM cannot, please raise >>> against PROV-O. >>> >>> If you think there is a round-tripping property the mapping >>> should have that it doesn't have, please formulate and raise it >>> as a separate issue against the mapping. (This could ultimately >>> imply changes to several things, so the mapping is an >>> appropriate place to raise it.) >>> >>> Proposal: Raise question whether Association and Delegation >>> should have time information against PROV-DM; no change needed >>> to mapping. >>> >>> --James >>> -- >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel:+44 23 8059 4487 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax:+44 23 8059 2865 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > -- 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 Monday, 20 February 2012 08:44:40 UTC