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

PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On Ontology [Formal Model]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:38:19 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RBjT9-00089A-Np@barney.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On Ontology [Formal Model]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/116

Raised by: Luc Moreau
On product: Formal Model

Comments about ontology
-----------------------

Ultimately, all concepts/notions of PROV-DM need to be serializable in RDF, and 
most of them are likely to be reflected in the ontology.

At the moment, the document is silent about:
- time
- account
- provenance container (class defined but not illustrated)
- qualifiers
- annotations
- attributes
- all derivation variants
- collections

I would expect all to be discussed in some form. They don't necessarily require a 
new concept in the ontology, but we need to be able to see how they are mapped.

Vice-versa, the ontology introduces notions that are not obviously mapped to
PROV-DM.   
- EntityInRole
- provo:Revision differs from provdm:wasRevisionOf
- preceded
- OWL2 annotation properties (e.g. rdfs:label, comment, seeAlos, isDefineBy,
  owl:deprecated, versionInfo,priorVersion,backwardCompatibleWith,incompatibleWith   ...)

Are they necessary for interoperability? Should they be made explicit in Prov-DM,
or how are they mapped to PROV-DM?

Finally, PROV-DM comes with a set of constraints which do not seem to
have all be captured.  As a minimum, the document should state which
ones are not captured by the ontology, but should be enforced by other
means (it's OK to say TBD later).
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 08:38:21 GMT

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