Re: Using PROV to express conformance results

Hi Andrea,
I'm not sure if using dct:conformsTo is a nice idea here. If you see the
range of that property (
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-conformsTo), it is an
"established Standard". I don't think that any test case could be
considered an established standard. IMO, this property is meant to be used
with something like "this xml document conforms to the XML standard"
(:document dct:conformsTo <http://www.w3.org/XML/> (or the URL you want to
use to refer to XML as a resource)).

Asserting that a document passes a given test is out of the scope of PROV.
However, PROV could be used to say that a result was generated by executing
a testing activity that was associated with the conformance test as a plan
and used the given resource as input:

:testing_activity
   a prov:Activity;
   prov:used :givenResource;
   prov:wasAssociatedWith :agentWhoExecutedTheTest;
   prov:qualifiedAssociation [
      a prov:Association;
      prov:agent   :agentWhoExecutedTheTest;
      prov:hadPlan :conformance_test;
   ];
.
:result
   a prov:Entity;
   prov:wasGeneratedBy :testingActivity.

:conformance_test
   a prov:Plan, prov:Entity;
   rdfs:comment "Unitary test 12331."@en;
.

Would that help?
Best,
Daniel


2015-05-06 11:43 GMT+02:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>:

> Dear PROV WG,
>
> I would like to ask your advise about the possibility of using the
> PROV ontology to model the results of a conformance test on a given
> resource with respect to a set of requirements, as defined in ISO
> 19115 [1,2]. The usage context is related to work under-way on
> GeoDCAT-AP that I've already mentioned in another thread [3].
>
> Dublin Core provides a property that can be used for this purpose,
> namely, dct:conformsTo, which is however able to address only one use
> case - i.e., when the test results are positive.
>
> PROV might provide a more general solution (allowing more results
> outcomes, the ability to specify who did the test, when, etc.), but
> since dct:conformsTo is not included in the PROV-DC mappings [4], it
> is unclear which could be the recommended way of doing that with PROV.
>
> On a related note, I would also like to mention that the current
> proposal under discussion in GeoDCAT-AP is to use the Evaluation and
> Reporting Language (EARL) vocabulary [5]. A (tentative) mapping table
> between ISO 19115 and EARL is available at:
>
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/140207
>
> Can PROV be used for the same purpose, and how?
>
> Looking forward to your feedback,
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> [1]https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=ISO_Data_Quality
> [2]https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=Conformance_Test_Results
> [3]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2015Apr/0003.html
> [4]http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/#term_conformsTo
> [5]http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>
>