W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: prov-dm - when are constructs too domain specific?

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:23:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE8CD64.3060609@vu.nl>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian,

Some of the current relations were motivated by use on the Web and 
common questions. So here's the provenance of the current common relations:

isRevisionOf - motivated by the Version Control use case. Makes it 
easier to model standard version control and document modification using 
the standard. It was identified in the charter as a construct.

wasAttributedTo - attribution is a core part of what people think of 
when describing provenance as described in the incubator group.

original-source: reflected provenance support within google news

wasQuotationOf: to support mark-up of quotations in web pages (e.g. 
blockquote)

wasSummaryOf: I thought it would be a nice thing to have :-)


So I think wasSummaryOf probably should go. Other people have wondered 
about it as well.

For the others, I think there useful and fairly general. Do you thing 
there are others that would be useful?

Thanks,
Paul



Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:25, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl>  wrote:
>> Personally, I'm in favor of being more liberal here in terms of including
>> constructs. Primarily because our purpose is interchange and having some
>> what can be considered domain specific constructs will greatly help in
>> facilitating provenance interchange. This is especially the case for common
>> cases.
>
> I agree that we should provide some general, yet domain-specific
> constructs, as they would encourage provenance exchange that is more
> valuable and specific than just "something used something else and
> made something new".
>
> However I don't think these should be influencing the "core" model or
> required for someone to say they are "PROV enabled".
>
> Also I believe such domain-specific constructs should be informed by
> actual needs from those domains, and not just made up on the fly,
> which is the feeling I get from some of the current "Common relations"
> constructs like wasSummaryOf. (What about wasIllustrationIn?
> discussed? disagreedWith?)
>
>
> So while I'm OK with having a semi-general relation like
> "wasRevisionOf" - these should be kept separate in some kind of
> "publication"-centric extension, as it would probably not be useful
> for instance to describe biological processes or where my coffee beans
> came from.
>
> The more domain-specific constraints we add, the more likely is we get
> them wrong, in particular if we are not domain experts.
>
> For instance, I work with scientific workflows, and could help with
> making an extension for provenance of workflows, but I would need help
> from many other workflow experts as well to be able to form something
> that is generally useful amongst most workflow systems, but such a
> task could then easily become overwhelming and worthy its own
> committees.
>
>
> (I think it should be a sign of success for PROV if we see such
> committees and approaches starting up!)
>

-- 
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
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:51 GMT