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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-106 (dgarijo): Accounts are missing in the document [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:06:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtn2=xezwnks72jp4s7kC=neev4sGWwweAd1sv+tGKpzRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 17:50, Daniel Garijo
<dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:

> That is an interesting question too:
> if we use named graphs, it will be inmediate, although I like other
> approaches as in OPMO,
> having a explicit relationship "account" where the domain is the item
> belonging to the account and
> the range the account instance.

I believe we are generally most keen on the named graph / separate RDF
resources per account (or per provenance container - however you want
to group these).


I believe linking accounts to everything would mean that we can't use
OWL/RDF properties directly, and would always have glue resources, for
instance for asserting conflicting views of attributes on an entity.
(At least not without using distinct identifiers for per entity per
account - which is different from the OPM-DM approach and adds a
question on how to link these two entities).


In OPMO this was easily solved because every edge is represented by a
glue class like WasControlledBy or Used - our current PROV-O approach
is to avoid these until we find evidence of the need for such.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 11:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:43 GMT