Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

Hi,

That was what I thought should be the case in the original version of ProvRDF.  

I think the goal is to re-use as much of OWL's annotation infrastructure as possible.  I'm not sure if that will work.

One counter-question:  Do the attributes on hasAnnotation records refer to the annotated thing, the note linked to the annotated thing, or to "the hasAnnotation record itself"?

that is, are the following equivalent:

note(n2,[ex:style="dotted"])
hasAnnotation(u1,n2)

and
hasAnnotation(u1,n2,[ex:style="dotted")

There are no examples in the DM document showing hasAnnotation with a non-empty list of attributes.

--James

On Feb 13, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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> 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> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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