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

Re: Testing the ontology for expressing workflow provenance

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:24:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkpp5fdJsUK_zPTwr3K6DH0YmJV5yJe4KhP7+Td7NHULA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:49, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Yes, but not that many. Perhaps I should try to express that
> provenance manually using the syntax used in the model document.

Updated http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TavernaProvenance using
ontology in past tense.

Abstract provenance syntax:

see https://github.com/stain/taverna-prov/blob/master/example/zip-prov-abstract.txt
 (transcribed from the RDF and given easier identifiers)

and https://github.com/stain/taverna-prov/blob/master/example/zip-prov-abstract-ideal.txt
(filled in additional info)

This last representation shows me that the abstract model can express
pretty much all the information we have in Taverna's provenance
(except for details on collections, iterations, errors, runtime
environment and and the workflow definition itself) - so that is very

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 09:25:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:08 UTC