Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

On 11/07/2012 16:52, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Graham, all
>
> I tried to outline a possible table. I just did it for a couple of rows,
> obviously, we need
> to continue for the others.
>
> Thoughts?

Luc,

I think that does it, except that I'd suggest using the function name rather 
than the syntax production name in the PROV-N column (e.g. "entity" rather than 
"entityExpression").  Similarly, I'd use the definition name in the PROV-DM 
column (e.g. "entity" rather than "provdm:entity"), and the term name (e.g. as 
prov:Entity, rather than provo:Entity) in the PROV-O column.

I think this is particularly particularly useful where a single term on PROV-DM 
or PROV-N is represented by several terms in PROV-O qualified relations, etc.

I'd also suggest an introductory statement along the lines of:

[[
PROV-DM, PROV-N and PROV-O describe the same underlying provenance data model. 
This table enumerates the corresponding terms that are introduced in each 
document.  In the case of PROV-O, several terms may be needed to express a 
single PROV-DM or PROV-N concept, as in the case of qualified relations.
]]

#g
--

>
> It appears at the beginning of section 1
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-table.html#data-model-components
>
>
> (Ignore the rest of the document)
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
>
> On 07/11/2012 12:07 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On 10/07/2012 20:51, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> While the prov-rdf mapping has been a useful tool for the design of the
>>> ontology and the data model,
>>> it has never been the intent of the WG that a mapping (even simplified) was
>>> going to be part of a REC.
>>> I would even argue that this is not part of our charter.
>>>
>>> This said, PROV-O qualified classes correspond to PROV-DM concepts.
>>> The name of a PROV-DM core relation is also the name of the corresponding
>>> PROV-O property.
>>>
>>> So, is just a matter of a table of prov-dm concepts and their corresponding
>>> classes in prov-o?
>>> This table could be added in appendix.
>>
>> Luc,
>>
>> I think a table might do it. I just think that it needs to be clear how they
>> line up. The naming has sufficient variations that they're not enough for the
>> purpose of a standard, IMO.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Paul Groth [p.t.groth@vu.nl]
>>> Sent: 10 July 2012 7:42 PM
>>> To: Graham Klyne
>>> Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; Luc Moreau; Timothy Lebo; public-prov-wg@w3.org
>>> Subject: 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 Thursday, 12 July 2012 13:59:45 UTC