PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-09-03
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-09-03
- time: 09:30 Pacific, 11:30 ET, 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_2012-09-03
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/uS4FbFhZf8
- next meeting
Paul: To move PROV-O work towards the regular WG level and WG call and use the tracker for individual tasks. Coordinate editorial work by email or telcon on Thursday. The PROV-O telcon stops.
(The team agrees)
Assigning issues from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
491: Stian 479: Satya 349: Stian, Khalid, David, Satya Daniel to have a look at the issues that are raised and not addressed, like http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446
- Tim (regrets)
- Daniel (regrets)
For the issues that you are assigned:
- describe the original concern
- describe any perspectives already expressed
- recommend next step, or propose a solution
- Stian want more volunteers for example checking - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtpchNBBcY-qdElUakV3M2paMUpIRE9IU2ZSMF9Xb3c#gid=0
- Daniel signs up - Deadline September
- REMINDER: TODO what you've signed up to do.
Are these valid errors?
10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2012-05-16T14:33"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2012-05-16T14:33"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2011-08-31T12:51"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2011-08-31T12:51"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2012-05-16T14:33"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2012-05-16T14:33"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2011-08-31T12:51"^^xsd:dateTime 10:57:58 WARN NodeValue :: Datatype format exception: "2011-08-31T12:51"^^xsd:dateTime
- Tim: are these datetimes okay?
- Stephan: xsd dateTime info
- The time zone may be specified as Z (UTC) or (+|-)hh:mm. Time zones that aren't specified are considered undetermined.
- TODO: Tim add a Z for timezone (since it is underdetermined if it is unspecified)
- property_hadUsage.ttl needs to be elaborated.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> . @prefix : <http://example.com/> . :digestedProteinSample1 a prov:Entity; prov:wasDerivedFrom :proteinSample; prov:qualifiedDerivation [ a prov:Derivation; prov:hadUsage [ a prov:Usage; prov:entity :Trypsin; prov:hadRole :treatmentEnzyme; ]; ]; prov:entity :proteinSample; . :proteinSample a prov:Entity .
- 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
- Review of examples
- Formalizing PROV-Constraints as OWL
- email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0057.html
- OWL: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/prov-constraints.owl
- Also see pgroth's https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin
- Tim (discussion only)
- Spreadsheet and classisfy as "going in or not" based on intuition, and where it would go
- Please help contribute!
- 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.
- Daniel awaiting Tim's feedback on 3.2 --> Stian will review
- Tim to regenerated document, Stian to continue review.
- Mainly examples have changed
- Stephan: no bandwidth
- Satya: willing to review
- Tim: willing to review, can't help make it.
- ... assuming that this will pick up in the next few weeks.
- Daniel: Paul's validator is on the implementation page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations
- ... link:
- Waiting for Tim and Stian to review the updates made after review of prov-o july 3 2012 for last call (33 RAISED feedback points left of 100+).
- Still have to discuss the figures that go in the final version of the document (David did more than the one that is currently there).
- Agreed to wait until David is available to discuss.
Finishing examples spreadsheet:
- will be doing another pass this week.
Someone please take
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479 narrative: examples use TriG
- stop using trig in prov-o html 
- highlighting focus terms in prov-o examples
- Khalid added a class to the strong, and add a color to the class.
- dark red #824 or burgundy #9E0508
- Khalid added http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/430db2dd07f7/ontology/PROV-O_highlighted_terms.html - for instance in section 4 prov:Activity in the example is highlighted in blue
- TODO: TIm to review document production pipeline to see how to get that markup in.
- Khalid redid markup example from LC draft.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/476 (hadOriginalSource still occurs in LC documents)
- Tim renamed hadOriginalSource to hadPrimarySource
- Done, just needs to be closed out and reported to comments list.
- Tim renamed to prov:*Source renamed to prov:*PrimarySource
- Jun awaiting feedback from Tim on terms to omit - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahxrga9AQHb_dDBQV3ZyWEN6S2RXcWVZMzI0S0xKeEE
- 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
- overlapping names
- for eg in *.ttl; do local="http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/$eg"; echo $local > $eg.sd_name; done