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

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:28:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6zcEZa9Wq87e2xqNcDCEuCxOwhNU1Og_ifQo4HACZQXrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,
Trust is not provenance as we agreed in the provenance incubator group. Is
trust associated with the record or the asserter who created the record or
the elements being described in the record? I am not sure trust or
reputation was in the scope of this WG?

Similarly, I am not sure why should rendering information (all examples of
dotted, doc.png in the DM) for provenance records be part of our work to
facilitate provenance interchange? This can be easily extended to state
that provenance records should be viewed using Firefox or Chrome and using
color monitors and over internet speeds of 10Mbps, and so on - this seems
to be completely out of scope for the WG.

The only place for adding notes and the associated "meta" information seems
to be best practices document.


On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>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<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 Tuesday, 14 February 2012 00:28:31 UTC

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