PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-08-06
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-08-06
- time: 12pm ET, 17:00 GMT (was: 16:30 GMT)
- via Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 695 ("OWL")
- wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-08-06
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/JGfCrD13tq
- next meeting
- We want to create an OWL formalization of appropriate constraints from section 5 of PROV-Constraint. Stian to send email.
- Waiting for progress on David's diagrams
- Jun awaiting feedback from Tim on terms to omit - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahxrga9AQHb_dDBQV3ZyWEN6S2RXcWVZMzI0S0xKeEE
- Stian want more volunteers for example checking - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtpchNBBcY-qdElUakV3M2paMUpIRE9IU2ZSMF9Xb3c#gid=0 - Daniel signs up - Deadline September
- Stephan closed issues:
- Khalid to do HTML styling of terms
- Daniel awaiting Tim's feedback on 3.2 --> Stian will review
- GK's issue on printed references --> Stian take
- TODO: rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource and prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource in OWL and examples -> generate HTML
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?
- Tim (?)
- Khalid, Paolo? (IPAW work on Datalog) (https://github.com/PaoloMissier/ProvToolbox/tree/master/datalog)
Jun: Paolo mentioning this on the implementation page already?
TODO: Stian to send email about this to get interest and find schedule.
- New diagrams http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/diagram-history/2012-07-09-david
- David did expanded terms, too. (notes in July 11, 2012 8:57:25 AM EDT email)
- Tim only got the first one in for LC.
- activity used something that was quoted from something that the activity generated
- :quote1, :publicationActivity1123
- Qual section: A diagram was also requested for after the first paragraph of 3.3, with another comment later regarding the same section focusing on rearranging the example/text; the raised editorial says "not sure how to resolve this" - I guess we should hold off doing a diagram until a decision is made?
- TODO: David to review the comments on the daigram/ ordering in qualificatoin section narrative and provide recommendation to group.
- Daniel: expanded-terms-example-all is useful, although it may be too big for the html. I would suggest to remove the boxes with additional metadata of the agents, entities and activities (the ones that are connected with dots). It will make things more simple, IMO.
- David did expanded terms, too. (notes in July 11, 2012 8:57:25 AM EDT email)
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)
- 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
- Stian to send email about PROV-Constraints in OWL to get interest and find schedule.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 [good] turtle examples in cross ref
- do the examples "fit the ontology"? TODO (CODE)
- David, Stian, Stephan, Tim will work on this as we go (no clear leader)
- Stian's report
- Just use something that makes sense for that example. Like http://example.org/car http://example.org/customer http://example.org/alice http://example.org/workingAtHome
- Stian: a bit long, log book on what he did. Lots of considerations came up.
- ... example called the same (e1, e1, e1).
- ... spelling mistakes
- TODO: do the renaming to avoid the collisions. TODO: Stian to coordinate the renaming, assign them, coordinate.
- TODO: do as a whole, then backtrack to the examples.
- work request: http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPRnXt=+Ownsy-Sw6Z3pUrmbHCz=wXaOCECuiN0txWtn0xPrJA@mail.gmail.com
- coordination spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtpchNBBcY-qdElUakV3M2paMUpIRE9IU2ZSMF9Xb3c#gid=0
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461 (Graham's printed cross reference)
- Last push on this was email "Re: Your feedback on pre-LC prov-o" from 18-20 July.
- highlighting focus terms in prov-o examples
- with strong HTML elements
- Khalid: we should see if the group wants / does not want it.
- Khalid redid markup example from LC draft.
- 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).
- The latest version is always http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
- 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
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479 narrative: examples use TriG
- 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
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/455 (Source vs. PrimarySource)
- WG resolved to rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource and prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource.
- but can we change in LC? Sandro.
- Stian: Any takers? Should be a search/replace in OWL+examples and new aquarius run-through
- Leave for next week
- http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Derivation should seeAlso Source, Revision, Quotation. (plus LC comment for others seeAlsos)
- Luc's scan
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336 pre-WD2 feedback
- These are editorial, and thus second priority before LC.
- prov:category and prov:component should be URIs, not literals (requires code, many filename dependencies across systems)
- Tim asked Luc to rename the following:
- How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o? In RDFa?
- What text to put into span title hover text that is there now?
- We can also do slightly nicer mouseover using CSS :hover http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_hover.asp http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/css-mouseover.html
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/388 (tools and demos)
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/389 extensions to prov-o