--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/b Mon Apr 30 11:11:56 2012 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+
+All --
+
+On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
+Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
+PROV-O HTML and OWL.
+
+http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
+
+
+
+Apologies for the delay in my review.
+
+Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following
+with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for
+release as FPWD2 --
+
+<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>
+
+(Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work
+is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this
+release... but these comments remain important.)
+
+
+
+First, to the key questions --
+
+* Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the
+ OWL design elements?
+
+As things stand, yes.
+
+
+* Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM
+ complement each other, or is it distracting?
+
+Their differences are fine.
+
+
+* Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you
+ read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
+
+1. Remove the redundant explanatory text. It should not follow
+ *both* IRI and Example. Given my choice, I'd say the better
+ positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
+ and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.
+
+ Now seen in at least
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>
+
+ But not seen in
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>
+
+2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of
+ section 4.1. I would also appreciate a complete
+ set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start
+ of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
+ illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
+ with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
+ *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
+ helpful to correct understanding).
+
+
+* Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize
+ with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
+* Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g.,
+ to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
+
+
+* Can the document be released as a next public working draft?
+ If no, what are the blocking issues?
+
+As noted earlier... Yes.
+
+
+And now... in depth.
+
+
+3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.
+ I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns,
+ such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically
+ increases comprehension. You can see a bit that (almost) does
+ this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.
+ (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the
+ first line match the ones beneath it.)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
+<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>
+
+4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap
+ positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
+ and "Expanded classes and properties". The former is clearly
+ a refinement of the latter.
+
+ Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
+ (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can
+ act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.
+
+ It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
+ property, used when you *don't know* what class started the
+ current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent
+ and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly*
+ prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know
+ the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but
+ general RDF entity).
+
+ Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout
+ the following and connected documents...
+
+
+
+re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
+<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>
+
+5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
+ (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and
+ prov:wasStartedByAgent).
+
+
+
+6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity
+ which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance
+ document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF
+ entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as
+ a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all
+ to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its
+ own Provenance...
+
+
+
+7. This phrasing is problematic --
+
+ "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
+ used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
+ influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."
+
+ "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the
+ "consumed" entity. I think this is not necessary, and thus
+ that this wording should change to something like --
+
+ "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
+ used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
+ influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple
+ presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical
+ interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants),
+ or otherwise."
+
+
+
+
+
+re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
+<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>
+
+
+8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"
+
+ I detect a typo. "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"
+
+
+
+9. This wording is confusing to me --
+
+ "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink,
+ but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."
+
+ The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent
+ link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the
+ preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the
+ latest version is shown")
+
+ I think this would be better --
+
+ "Thus, the permalink to the latest version
+ (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new
+ revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot
+ (ex:postContent1)."
+
+ I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example
+ block, from --
+
+ prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK of the post
+
+-- to --
+
+ prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post
+
+
+
+
+re: 3.4 Collections Terms
+<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>
+
+10. I think there's an error in this text --
+
+ "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was
+ obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the
+ key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."
+
+ I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".
+
+
+Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
+I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
+week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
+out now, than to delay it further.
+
+Speak with you soon,
+
+Ted
+
+
+
+
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/c Mon Apr 30 11:11:56 2012 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+
+ All --
+
+ On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
+ Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
+ PROV-O HTML and OWL.
+
+ http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
+
+
+
+ Apologies for the delay in my review.
+
+ Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following
+ with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for
+ release as FPWD2 --
+
+ <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>
+
+ (Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work
+ is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this
+ release... but these comments remain important.)
+
+
+
+ First, to the key questions --
+
+ * Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the
+ OWL design elements?
+
+ As things stand, yes.
+
+
+ * Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM
+ complement each other, or is it distracting?
+
+ Their differences are fine.
+
+
+ * Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you
+ read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
+
+ 1. Remove the redundant explanatory text. It should not follow
+ *both* IRI and Example. Given my choice, I'd say the better
+ positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
+ and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.
+
+ Now seen in at least
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>
+
+ But not seen in
+ - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>
+
+ 2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of
+ section 4.1. I would also appreciate a complete
+ set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start
+ of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
+ illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
+ with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
+ *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
+ helpful to correct understanding).
+
+
+ * Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize
+ with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
+ * Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g.,
+ to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
+
+
+ * Can the document be released as a next public working draft?
+ If no, what are the blocking issues?
+
+ As noted earlier... Yes.
+
+
+ And now... in depth.
+
+
+ 3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.
+ I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns,
+ such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically
+ increases comprehension. You can see a bit that (almost) does
+ this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.
+ (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the
+ first line match the ones beneath it.)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
+ <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>
+
+ 4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap
+ positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
+ and "Expanded classes and properties". The former is clearly
+ a refinement of the latter.
+
+ Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
+ (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can
+ act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.
+
+ It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
+ property, used when you *don't know* what class started the
+ current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent
+ and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly*
+ prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know
+ the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but
+ general RDF entity).
+
+ Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout
+ the following and connected documents...
+
+
+
+ re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
+ <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>
+
+ 5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
+ (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and
+ prov:wasStartedByAgent).
+
+
+
+ 6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity
+ which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance
+ document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF
+ entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as
+ a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all
+ to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its
+ own Provenance...
+
+
+
+ 7. This phrasing is problematic --
+
+ "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
+ used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
+ influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."
+
+ "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the
+ "consumed" entity. I think this is not necessary, and thus
+ that this wording should change to something like --
+
+ "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
+ used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
+ influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple
+ presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical
+ interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants),
+ or otherwise."
+
+
+
+
+
+ re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
+ <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>
+
+
+ 8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"
+
+ I detect a typo. "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"
+
+
+
+ 9. This wording is confusing to me --
+
+ "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink,
+ but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."
+
+ The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent
+ link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the
+ preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the
+ latest version is shown")
+
+ I think this would be better --
+
+ "Thus, the permalink to the latest version
+ (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new
+ revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot
+ (ex:postContent1)."
+
+ I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example
+ block, from --
+
+ prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK of the post
+
+ -- to --
+
+ prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post
+
+
+
+
+ re: 3.4 Collections Terms
+ <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>
+
+ 10. I think there's an error in this text --
+
+ "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was
+ obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the
+ key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."
+
+ I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".
+
+
+ Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
+ I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
+ week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
+ out now, than to delay it further.
+
+ Speak with you soon,
+
+ Ted
+
+
+
+
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/property_wasApprovedBy.ttl Mon Apr 30 11:11:56 2012 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+@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/> .
+
+# TODO