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

Re: Updated PROV-O OWL and ProvRDF wiki page

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:07:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4F3E7B5E.4060606@vu.nl>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian,

This is really a great and comprehensive update.  This will be much 
easier to evaluate and thus keep in sync.

It is much appreciated.

Regards,
Paul


Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> I have updated now both the ontology and wiki page to be in sync:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>
>
> The only things in flux now is:
>
> precise vs. inprecise in
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Derivation
> -- we have implemented Daniel's suggest in the OWL  (I did not add the
> mysterious prov:steps - but perhaps Tim can add this, he seems to know
> how. I was hoping we could do this as a subclass of prov:Derivation)
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Time is empty  (but I've
> modified the other usages of time to clarify prov:Instant and
> prov:Time
>
>
> prov:inXSDDateTime is not mentioned in ProvRDF - probably because the
> usages of time literals in DM is a bit here and there?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#AlternateOf and
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#SpecializationOf - only the
> unqualified version was mapped to OWL.
>
>
>
> I've added various things to the OWL for qualified Derivation, etc. We
> need to dicuss these more as they are all interrelated - but hopefully
> this should be simpler now that we have OWL.
>
> prov:Bundle is only partially mapped - we only have the class
> prov:Bundle in owl.
>
>
> I've added to ProvRDF the inferences that would come from the current
> OWL - for instance if there's a prov:Agent it is always also
> mentioned as a prov:Entity.
>
>
> I've fixed some of the translations in ProvRDF where the IDs were
> wrong, for instance it said "e1 prov:hadQualifiedDerivation id" - it
> should have been e2 to match the scruffy version.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:32, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> Hi Stian,
>> I raised an issue yesterday (ISSUE-253)
>> with my preliminary findings.
>>
>> In addition, Attribution, Activity Start (referred to as starting again in
>> prov rdf) and Inform
>> don't seem to be in the ontology.  What is the class prov:Start?
>> prov:Attribution? prov:Inform?
>> The mapping has prov:hadQualifiedInform???
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/253
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/17/2012 11:14 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> I would have appreciated individual issues for the things
>>> missing/wrong instead, but OK..
>>>
>>> I'm going through the OWL file now and putting in rdfs:seeAlso links
>>> to the ProvRDF page for the concepts that I can verify are mapped.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:19, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear prov-o team,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I had to reopen ACTION-55 [1].
>>>>
>>>> The team has done good work in specifying the PROV to RDF mapping.
>>>> It will be very helpful to discuss alignment between PROV-DM and PROV-O,
>>>> and the team has already identified issues for discussion. That's great.
>>>>
>>>> However, the PROV to RDF mapping is not reflected in the ontology.
>>>> Some constructs (class/property) occurring in the prov-rdf mapping
>>>> are simply missing in the ontology.
>>>> Furthermore, cardinality constraints, etc, need to be specified.
>>>>
>>>> Before discussing alignment, we need to have an ontology.
>>>>
>>>> May I remind you how important this is for the progress of the WG to
>>>> complete
>>>> this ontology.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/55
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 16:10:55 GMT

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