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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-107 (interoperability-rdf-serialization): is example provenance serialization in RDF inter-operable? [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtk+KNfPSQnR6sAj0qzBwu+TSW_FVH0nVt2=fa9QTAQ-4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 22:43, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> I was expecting that a serialization of PROV-DM would expose the concepts defined in the model directly.

I left out the "duplicate"/inferred properties and classes from PROV
on purpose due to the verbosity of the RDF/XML format - and because
this example is to show how an ontology can be extended using OWL. (If
not then people might wonder why they should extend the PROV ontology
at all)


I still included a note:

> Note that the example above does not show the inferred classes and properties from the PROV ontology. For interoperability, applications should also expressed such inferred statements, so that the provenance can be read without using OWL2 inferencing and the customized ontologies.


but I guess this could be made more explicit - like a second example
showing what are the inferred PROV entities which should also be
asserted, or one showing both of these merged.


As my example section was already long enough, and doing so at this
point would make it harder to modify the example, I didn't do this.


We could also do a hybrid and always use prov:properties , as most of
the properties have sensible rdfs:range we can infer that something is
a ProcessExecution if it is in the other end, and don't need to
declare that type. Would that be acceptible as interoperable - or
would the applications not even be able to RDFS inferencing of the
PROV ontology? (Which would bring up again Satya's point about why use
semantic web stack without using it)

I just made http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/examples/ontology-extensions/workflow/workflow-inferred.rdf
to show what it would look like if we include the PROV terms
explicitly (179 lines vs 138 lines in workflow.rdf vs 88 lines in
workflow.ttl) . This should be understandable by a pure RDF parser
without any reasoning - except that <Role> is a subclass of <Entity>
that is.


(Note that this example uses <Role> in the meaning of <EntityInRole> -
and the experimental properties <assumedBy> and <assumedRole> pending
ISSUE-103)

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 10:40:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT