Editorial notes for prov terms
Comments
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
$
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Still loading...
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1
The latest draft is at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
2
Prov TermsSection in which described (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, "okay to omit", "does not exist")Reviewed byStatus (what concern is there, and what needs to be done?)
3
Activity3.1JunNone
4
ActivityInfluenceokay to omithttps://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442
5
Agent3.1JunNone
6
AgentInfluenceokay to omithttps://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442
7
Association3.3 x 8JunNone
8
Attribution3.3 (table only)SatyaNoneWe can add a brief statement paraphrased from class defn. "Attribution is the ascribing of an entity to an agent." before Figure 3

TL: I'm not sure, since the point of 3.3 is not to introduct attribution or association, but to show how to qualify them. The fundamentals are described in 3.1/3.2 and the definitions are readily available in 3.4. What itch are you trying to scratch?

@@CLARIFY(Satya)

Satya: Ok - this was my first term so I was not very clear about how much description to add in sec. 3. Its ok to ignore my initial comment
9
Bundle3.2JunNone
10
Collection3.2JunNone
11
Communication3.3 (table only)JunNone
12
Delegation3.3 (table only)JunNone
13
Derivation3.3 x 3JunNone
14
End3.3 (table only)??NoneI think no need to expand it as its simple form has been explained in section 3.2. This applies to all other qualified influence classes in Table 2.
15
Entity3.1JunNone
16
EntityInfluenceokay to omithttps://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442
17
Generation3.3 x 5JunNone
18
Influence3.3JunNone
19
InstantaneousEvent3.2JunNone
20
Invalidation3.2JunNone
21
Location3.2JunNone
22
Organization3.2JunNone
23
Person3.2JunNone
24
Plan3.3 x 2StephanNone
25
ProvenanceServiceokay to omitPAQ

26
Quotation3.3 (table only)SatyaNoneSimilar to "Attribution", We can just describe quotation allows to describe the provenance of an entity stated by someone other than the original author".

TL: 3.2 has "More specifically, three subproperties of prov:wasDerivedFrom are provided for certain kinds of derivation among Entities: prov:wasQuotedFrom cites a potentially larger Entity (such as a book, blog, or image) from which a new Entity was created by repeating some or all of the original". I suggest we leave it at that.

@@REVIEW(Satya)

Satya: Agree
27
Revision3.3 (table only)SatyaNoneAdd a sentence "A special case of derivation is when an entity is derived from existing entity with substantial overlap in terms of "content". This is modeled using the "Revision" construct". We can add it at end of paragraph in Section 3.1 on prov:wasDerivedFrom.

TL: I added to section 3.2: "prov:wasRevisionOf indicates that the derived Entity contains substantial content from the original Entity (e.g., two editions of a book),". I still think that the concepts should be introduced in 3.2, and NOT 3.3, which is for qualifying the concept.

@@REVIEW(Satya)

Satya: Ok - if we need to reduce, we can remove the example (e.g., two editions of a book)?
28
Role3.3StephanNone
29
SoftwareAgent3.2JunNone
30
Source3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
31
Start3.3 (table only) + 6SatyaNone
32
Usage3.3JunNone
33
actedOnBehalfOf3.1JunNone
34
activity3.3 (example generation)Junnone
35
agent3.3JunNone
36
alternateOf3.2JunNone
37
asInBundle3.2JunNone
38
atLocation3.2JunNone
39
entity3.3JunNone
40
generated3.2JunNone
41
hadActivity3.3 (example Derivation)Junnone
42
hadGeneration3.3 (example Derivation)Junnone
43
hadMember3.2JunNone
44
hadPlan3.3Junnone
45
hadPrimarySource3.2JunNone
46
hadRole3.3StephanNone
47
hadUsage3.3 (example Derivation)Junnone
48
hasAnchorokay to omitPAQ
49
hasProvenanceokay to omitPAQ
50
hasProvenanceServiceokay to omitPAQ
51
influencedokay to omitJunNone
52
influencerokay to omitJunNone
53
invalidated3.2JunNone
54
mentionOf3.2JunIn the last two sentences, the description about prov:mentionOf is not as clear as the def in the ontology. I suggest we use the one in the ontology.

TL: which definition is clearer? Is it "When :x prov:mentionOf :y and :y is described in Bundle :b, the triple :x prov:asInBundle :b is also asserted to cite the Bundle in which :y was described." ?

Jun: this one: "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."

@@RESPOND(Tim)

TL: I asked Jun to take a stab.
55
qualifiedAssociation3.3JunNone
56
qualifiedAttribution3.3 (table only)JunNone
57
qualifiedCommunication3.3 (table only)JunNone
58
qualifiedDelegation3.3 (table only)JunNone
59
qualifiedDerivation3.3 (example Derivation)JunNone
60
qualifiedEnd3.3 (table only)JunNone
61
qualifiedGeneration3.2JunNone
62
qualifiedInfluencedoes not existNone
63
qualifiedInvalidation3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
64
qualifiedQuotation3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
65
qualifiedRevision3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
66
qualifiedSource3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
67
qualifiedStart3.3 (table only)SatyaNone
68
qualifiedUsage3.3JunNone
69
specializationOf3.2JunNone
70
used3.1JunNone
71
wasAssociatedWith3.1JunNone
72
wasAttributedTo3.1JunNone
73
wasDerivedFrom3.1Junnone
74
wasEndedBy3.2JunNone
75
wasGeneratedBy3.1JunNone
76
wasInfluencedBy3.2JunNone
77
wasInformedBy3.1Junnone
78
wasInvalidatedBy3.2JunNone
79
wasQuotedFrom3.2JunNone
80
wasRevisionOf3.2JunNone
81
wasStartedBy3.2JunNone
82
83
atTime3.3JunNone
84
endedAtTime3.1JunNone
85
generatedAtTime3.2JunNone
86
invalidatedAtTime3.2JunNone
87
provenanceUriTemplateokay to omitPAQ
88
startedAtTime3.1JunNone
89
value3.2JunNone
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
Sheet1