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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-107 (interoperability-rdf-serialization): is example provenance serialization in RDF inter-operable? [Formal Model]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dd3-7XXLEnp2WJ7jQjq6yqjWYOgie9udX-NT8DkKruq2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,
the current ontology has the concepts you were proposing to model the
example.
Although the best practices document has still to be updated, I think this
issue
can be closed.

Thoughts?
Thanks,
Daniel

2011/9/30 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 22:43, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > I was expecting that a serialization of PROV-DM would expose the
> concepts defined in the model directly.
>
> I left out the "duplicate"/inferred properties and classes from PROV
> on purpose due to the verbosity of the RDF/XML format - and because
> this example is to show how an ontology can be extended using OWL. (If
> not then people might wonder why they should extend the PROV ontology
> at all)
>
>
> I still included a note:
>
> > Note that the example above does not show the inferred classes and
> properties from the PROV ontology. For interoperability, applications
> should also expressed such inferred statements, so that the provenance can
> be read without using OWL2 inferencing and the customized ontologies.
>
>
> but I guess this could be made more explicit - like a second example
> showing what are the inferred PROV entities which should also be
> asserted, or one showing both of these merged.
>
>
> As my example section was already long enough, and doing so at this
> point would make it harder to modify the example, I didn't do this.
>
>
> We could also do a hybrid and always use prov:properties , as most of
> the properties have sensible rdfs:range we can infer that something is
> a ProcessExecution if it is in the other end, and don't need to
> declare that type. Would that be acceptible as interoperable - or
> would the applications not even be able to RDFS inferencing of the
> PROV ontology? (Which would bring up again Satya's point about why use
> semantic web stack without using it)
>
> I just made
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/examples/ontology-extensions/workflow/workflow-inferred.rdf
> to show what it would look like if we include the PROV terms
> explicitly (179 lines vs 138 lines in workflow.rdf vs 88 lines in
> workflow.ttl) . This should be understandable by a pure RDF parser
> without any reasoning - except that <Role> is a subclass of <Entity>
> that is.
>
>
> (Note that this example uses <Role> in the meaning of <EntityInRole> -
> and the experimental properties <assumedBy> and <assumedRole> pending
> ISSUE-103)
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:12:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT