PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-08-06

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Information

prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon


  • Stian
  • Daniel
  • David
  • Jun
  • Satya


  • Tim
  • Stephan
  • Khalid



For the issues that you are assigned:

  • describe the original concern
  • describe any perspectives already expressed
  • recommend next step, or propose a solution

Rescheduling the regular call

Following calls start at 16:30 GMT (30 minutes earlier). This telcon might stop at 17:30 GMT.

Formalizing PROV-Constraints as OWL?

Also see pgroth's https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin

Jun: Does this work yet?

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/releases/ED-prov-constraints-20120723/prov-constraints.html PGroth using Sparql: https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin/blob/master/prov-rules/inference/activity/generation-use-commuication-inference-6.txt

Jun: People would be more interesting in validating provenance, rather than adding further inference. If a full OWL ontology could express all these constraints that would be very valuable. Starting on section 5. Stian: Like wasgeneratedBy functional Jun: And cardinality Jun: even with OWL Time ontology it would not be easy to do time constraints Jun: but things like reflexibility, functionality, etc, should be easy Jun: then perhaps SPIN rules for the more complex cases

Satya: Could also implement as per rules, a seperate PROV validation application to run together with any OWL reasoner.

Stian: Think we have room to provide such a validator, but don't have to

Jun: If it comes out of our group, it will have resonance with ppl, even if it's not part of a standard. Certainly interesting, Paul is also trying to do something on this. But where do we schedule it in?

Stian: Not just some simple weekend work!

Who are interested?

Jun: Paolo mentioning this on the implementation page already?

TODO: Stian to send email about this to get interest and find schedule.




Daniel: Has provided feedback, but this discussion has not continued. Stian: Is it worth pursuing to get new diagrams for release? Daniel: Just some typos, David had also created some new diagrams that we might not all need.


  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442 (what prov.owl terms can we omit in prov.html)
    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahxrga9AQHb_dDBQV3ZyWEN6S2RXcWVZMzI0S0xKeEE
    • TODO mentionOf in narrative is not clear - use the one from the ontology "The mention of an Entity in a Bundle (containing a description of this Entity) is another Entity that is a specialization of the former and that presents the Bundle as a further additional aspect."
    • Jun's stab: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf, which links a more specific Entity to a more general one that is described in a prov:Bundle. prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the more general Entity was mentioned."
    • TODO: Tim to incorporate feedback.
      • Jun: Still awaiting feedback from Tim




  • TODO: Khalid add a class to the strong, and add a color to the class.
    • dark red #824 or burgundy #9E0508


  • TODO Work through review of prov-o july 3 2012 for last call (33 RAISED feedback points left of 100+)
  • The only 2 things that I have detected is that in section 3.2 there is no example for mention and asInBundle (even though the example has bundles) and there is no wasInfluencedBy in the example (it could be easily added as an inference of wasAttributedTo).
  • Rename chart maker, make consistent.
    • - I wonder if a better example organization instead of ex:chartgen would be "National Newspaper".
    • - I think the team was already looking at the consistency of the examples. It was Chart Generators and now in this example it's Chart Generators Inc.
  • it was suggested for prov-dm that examples should be described in past tense. It should be done here too.

Daniel: rewrote some parts, filled in some missing terms. Responded to Tim. TODO: Tim to review the changes.

Daniel: Still waiting for Tim to review.

Daniel: what about the other figures? Tim: How many figures? Tim: let's postpone until David joins us. Stian: takes over Tim's review


Someone please take
  • Ivan's comments http://www.w3.org/mid/2BB8960E-3025-4116-B43B-4185BB99A68F@w3.org
    • his means that there is an editorial issue in the current Last Call which still refers to the TR space (in the abstract)
  • Update figures to latest draft: Well sppotted, I hadn't realized. I have changed it. They are 2 different activities. (see Daniel)
    • Regarding the image with the bundlePost in the html, I have spotted a typo: There is an edge with prov:hadLocation from the pyublicationActivity to the Location, which is incorrect. This edge should be from :post9821v1 instead (as you have it with :post9821v2). Also, there is a "my" prefix in the edge snapshotContent that should be ":" according to the example. Also, as I suggested before i would remove the boxes with "type" and "date" to simplify the although that's just my opinion.
    • Finally, I had to do some small changes to the example, adding annotations to the bundle. Would you mind adding those, please?. (Daniel)
  • Review Daniel's 3.2
  • Luc's scan