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

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|3ac8b44b44531803b3a59989c0aed6bao1CA6F08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F38E093.60506@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,

Having looked at the ProvRDF mapping, I don't understand
the type of note.
I was expecting a class Note to be introduced, and the annotation relation
to be allowed for anything identifiable in PROV, so, this means,
elements but also relations.

Luc

On 02/12/2012 10:29 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> Yes we use such notes to also propagate "trust" information
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 12 Feb 2012, at 20:54, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu 
> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>
>> Is there motivation for Notes other than to sneak messages to the 
>> visual layer?
>>
>> note(ann1,[ex:color="blue", ex:screenX=20, ex:screenY=30])
>> It seems to me that this is simply data modeling and NOT provenance 
>> modeling.
>> If it is _only_ data modeling, I think that it should stay out of 
>> PROV, which should focus on modeling only provenance.
>>
>>
>> Underneath the surface of Notes is the age old debate 
>> of "characterizing attributes" versus "non-characterizing attributes".
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2012, at 21:15, Daniel Garijo 
>>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es 
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>>
>>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 10:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT