Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM (was: Are qualified<Foo> relations IFPs?)

Hi Graham

PROV-O had cross-refs to PROV-N.

I had asked them to be taken out in my review. I was thinking that the links directly into prov-dm were more informative

Paul 

On Jul 10, 2012, at 19:34, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 10/07/2012 17:35, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Is round-tripping PROV-O and PROV-N a requirement?  That could well be a can
>>> of worms.
>> 
>> I don't think round-tripping various scruffy provenance is a
>> requirement, as it would become very difficult, specially PROV-O to
>> PROV-N. What if there is an anonymous node representing an activity's
>> start?
>> 
>> But "anything" covered by PROV-DM valid by PROV-Constraint should be
>> covered by PROV-O, right? That is the principle we've worked on for
>> the last 6 months or so.
> 
> That's what I assumed.
> 
>>> Something I haven't seen in the specs I've is a description of the mapping
>>> between PROV-N and PROV-O (that's one of my comments on PROV-O).
>> 
>> Right, we've kept that in the wiki -
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF  (I'm sure this is quite out
>> of date, using PROV-DM WD3)
>> 
>> as you see it can get quite verbose.. would you really want that as
>> part of the spec? Perhaps another note?
> 
> Hmmm... the wiki, or a separate NOTE, doesn't really stand as part of W3C REC.
> 
> I think there's a bit of a gap in the family of specifications if the mapping 
> isn't clear as part of the REC set.  I thought the whole idea was that 
> PROV-DM/PROV-N defined a technology neutral model, and PROV-O was the RDF/OWL 
> realization of that model.  For that to work, we have to know what are the 
> precise correspondences.
> 
> I don't think we need to describe a mechanical translation process, which I 
> think contributes to the bulk of the wiki page.  I think a table of PROV-N forms 
> and corresponding RDF forms would cover it.  Maybe as an appendix of the PROV-O 
> document, or woven into the cross-reference?
> 
> I haven't previously been following the PROV-O work so closely, because I 
> thought plenty of others were doing that, so didn't notice this previously.
> 
> I think it's a potentially serious issue that we need to consider:  why are we 
> producing multiple REC-track specifications if we are not being quite clear 
> about how they relate to each other?  I'd be surprised if this isn't picked up 
> in last-call -- if it isn't, I'd be suspicious that we are not getting enough 
> serious external review.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 18:42:08 UTC