W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:35:23 +0100
Message-ID: <B46DE937-985A-49FF-85C0-54F33C9F6409@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Of course you can use constructs however you want. I don't think Note was intended as such so it seems that discussing this usage would be out of scope. 

Why confuse potential adopters of the spec?


On Feb 12, 2012, at 21:15, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:

> There was some discussion on the prov-o team about this. "Note" could be used for describing provenance
> statements in an informal way with custom annotations.
> Therefore, IMO some people could use it for metadata provenance even if that is not the intention on DM.
> For example: I could add annotations about all the usages (since the note is about a record) stating who is the author
> of that assertion.
> Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 2012/2/12 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
> Hi,
> I was just having a look through the ProvRDF mappings page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
> In the Note section there is a concern "but NOT for the much heavier-duty use that DM offers (meta-provenance)."
> The DM does not use Note for meta provenance so I don't know where this is coming from.
> cheers,
> Paul
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2012 20:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:12 UTC