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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:55:56 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|131d98eab531ec3bbfb921960ad46afbo24Lu808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F55366C.5010709@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I am fine with closing it Daniel.
Cheers,
Luc

On 05/03/12 16:12, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>>
>
>     On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 22:43, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>     <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@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 21:58:42 GMT

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