Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-03-26
From Provenance WG Wiki
Contents
Meeting Information
prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-03-26
- time: 12pm ET, 5pm UK, 6pm CET
- via Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 695 ("OWL")
- wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-03-26
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/CZLOuE1che
- next meeting
Attendees
- Tim
- Khalid
- Paul
- Paolo
- Stephan
- Satya
- Mike
- Jun
- Stian
- Daniel
Summary
- We reviewed the assignments for sections in the PROV-O HTML, whose draft is due Friday. As sections get added this week, we'll announce within group for some internal review.
- We discussed the ProvRDF coverage automation, how the ASN signatures are extracted from DM, and how they should match. Any desire to have a different signature should be an ISSUE against DM.
- We discussed collections in the telecon, and Stephen proposed some changes that Paolo will be considering:
- simple insertions are "bulk" insertions of one element (and thus simple should fade away)
- collections' members should be assertable directly (without showing derivation to empty sets)
- how to reconcile prov collections with RDF collections (which may be deprecated)?
Minutes
Timeline
- 3/30 (4/2) - draft WD2 due (both ontology and html)
- 4/9 - feedback from WG due
- 4/16 - final WD2 due for vote (both ontology and html)
- 4/19 - WG votes
- draft should be ready for publishing, so we can devote the final two weeks (3/30-4/15) to closing new issues that get raised and taking care of administrative issues
HTML
- http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
- write content for sections of html that are not generated from ontology
Section assignments:
- Section 1: Introduction
- Mike
- Section 2: Glance
- Automatic
- Section 3: The PROV-O Ontology Description
- Jun can update the diagram and examples and overview text
- TODO: Jun: did your changes make it in?
- the text is fine, (except for "Terms for expressing Qualified relationship" should be "Terms for expressing qualified relationship") but the diagrams are not shown in the html yet.
- Section 3.1 Prov-O starting points:
- Khalid (Description of the diagram + example)
- will include Jun's and Khalid's updates - look for it tomorrow.
- Khalid (Description of the diagram + example)
- Section 3.2 Prov-O expanded:
- ???? (depends on 3.1? -- wait until 3.1 is done?) I agree
- Daniel, Satya? TODO (keep it simple. give an introduction)
- Section 3.3 Qualifying Relationships in Prov-O:
- Tim (delayed to Tue afternoon)
- A lot have been outlined in the structure-v3.docx, including a good selection of examples and two diagrams
- Section 3.4 Collections: (lowest priority section)
- Stian (should be able to start on the 27th)
- done: Tim remind Stian.
- Section 4: Cross reference for PROV-O classes and properties
- Automatic
reviewers (less of a concern for within team - could be released to wg):
- khalid - thursday
- paul
- Jun - Friday morning (UK time)
Authoring methodology options:
- 1. Add text to source HTML of http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o, save original and modified version, send both to Tim
- 2. Write as plain text (e.g. word document)
ProvRDF
- provRDF-coverage - need to have all terms from DM represented in OWL and vice versa
- http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage
- Stian - any comments?
- Stian to update "had" properties
- Tim to update ProvRDF page to use correct syntax for auto-generating coverage page
- Satya: I am not clear about including "id a prov:Agent" on the RHS for Person, Organization, and SoftwareAgent - it is not present in DM. If we include inferred triples, do we consider prov:Entity also for these three cases?
- mention not only the direct, but also the inferred on the RHS. Why not include prov:Entity?
- done: Tim to give Paolo command to give list of ASN expressions. ()
curl -H "Content-Type: text/turtle" -d "<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/WD-prov-dm-20120309/prov-dm.html> a <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document> ." http://sparql.tw.rpi.edu/services/datafaqs/util/wikitable-fol
ontology
- Stephan to add Collections to ontology (bulk vs single)
- http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component5
- bulk vs singular insertion
- IN PROV-N
1) derivedByBulkInsertionFrom(c1, c, {("k1", v1), ("k2", v2)}) 2) derivedByInsertionFrom(c2, c1, "k3", v3) 3) derivedByBulkInsertionFrom(c2, c1, {("k3", v3)})
I [stephan] think 2) == 3)
paolo saw the bulk as a convenience for the individuals.
when we see a prov-n of single insertion, we can consider it as a bulk of one.
- containment
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0459.html
in PROV-N
containedBulk(c3, {("k4", v4), ("k5", v5)})
Why not this? (NOT PROV-N)
collection(c3, {("k4", v4), ("k5", v5)})
:c3 a prov:Collection ; prov:containment [ a prov:Containment ; # This is a prov:Involvement ? prov:collection :c3 ; # we omit this, subject is implied? prov:keyValuePair [ a prov:KeyValuePair ; prov:key "k3"^^xsd:string ; prov:value :v3 ] ] ; prov:containment [ a prov:Containment ; prov:collection :c4 ; prov:keyValuePair [ a prov:KeyValuePair ; prov:key "k4"^^xsd:string ; prov:value :v4 ] ] .
paolo: this is set membership, not spatial containment. (spatial containment is already defined elsewhere (e.g. geonames))