Re: provenance ontology in the Organization Ontology

Hi Paul,

Just to let you know that the working group agreed on Thursday's telecon 
to switch the ORG ontology to use PROV-O.

So I've made that change in the latest version.

We believe the the terms in PROV-O we now use have the same semantics as 
the OMPV terms we used before. Since, in any case, we are not aware of 
anyone directly using the current OPMV links in ORG we felt it was 
possible to make this change without having a formal mapping to reference.

Best wishes,
Dave


On 03/10/12 16:50, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> In terms of timing, so far it seems we are on track to go to CR by
> November 15, 2012. We are processing public comments right now and
> there doesn't seem to be any design changes but we still need to get
> through everything.
>
> The mapping from OPMV - PROV is straightforward. It's not in the remit
> of the WG but we can check with the group (in particular Jun Zhao) if
> anyone was planning on doing this. If this is what's needed to get
> adoption I'm sure we can find some time.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I raised this question on the GLD working group list at the start of
>> this week.
>>
>> While there are several deployed uses of ORG I'm not aware of any that
>> depend on the OMPV relationship so it *may* be reasonable to change to
>> using PROV-O without triggering a deprecation or namespace-change cycle.
>>
>> Will you, or anyone else, be publishing mappings between PROV-O and
>> deployed vocabularies like OPMV? If so that would ease concerns over
>> possibly breaking existing usage.
>>
>> There is also the issue timing and having ORG publication dependent on
>> PROV-O publication. I had misunderstood the status of PROV-O but now
>> understand it is in Last Call.
>>
>> When do you expect to publish the next version and will that be another
>> Last Call WD or will it be moving to CR?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> P.S. Apologies to gld-chairs if I shouldn't have replied directly,
>> seemed appropriate in this case.
>>
>>
>> On 03/10/12 16:15, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was just reading the Organization Ontology [1]. Good job on a nice
>>> and useful ontology.
>>>
>>> I did however have a comment. Currently, you subclass OPMV for your
>>> provenance ontology. Given that the W3C is producing a recommended
>>> provenance ontology PROV-O [2] (now in last call). I was wondering if
>>> you could consider moving to prov or is there a reason to stick with
>>> OPMV?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> co-chair W3C Provenance Working Group
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20120405/
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>>>     Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>>> - The Network Institute
>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 08:08:08 UTC