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

Re: Quality check of ProvRDF

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:51:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4F6201EC.4020508@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian,

Great! I've been waiting for this to do a sanity check of our prov-o 
structure.

Have a nice trip!

-- Jun

On 15/03/2012 12:48, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've gone through the ProvRDF page on my way to Boston.
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
>
> See changes: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ProvRDF&diff=6581&oldid=6536
>
>
> I've fixed the uneven spacing problem of the tables, it was caused by
> intermediate spaces in the wiki markup, ie. instead of
>
>> | blahg
>>
>> | bluh
>
> use:
>
>> | blahg
>> | bluh
>
>
> I'll need to go through it again with a check against the OWL as I had
> an old version in my checkout.
>
> Most notable changes are on derivation:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Derivation
>
>
> The prov:Derivation now includes prov:generation and prov:usage so
> that it can fully represent the complete DM statement.
>
> Note that this presentation is particularly verbose, so I'm proposing
> to add a new syntax to triples that are inferred from the others, so
> that you can distinguish triple that come directly from the
> translation (for instance :e1 prov:wasDerivedFrom :e1 or the type
> signature, :ag a prov:Agent) from the directly inferred ones (such as
> :ag a prov:Agent or :e2 prov:tracedTo :e1).
>
> Triples that come from inference rules should not be included, for
> instance for wasQuotedFrom we should not include :e1
> prov:wasAttributedTo :ag1. This is not representing the DM statement,
> this is a conclusion that you can draw from the represented
> prov:Quotation and its prov:quoter and prov:quoted.
>
>
> We still need to sort some things out with the class hierarchy with
> respect to attribute/involved-id 'inheritance' in DM .. for instance
> will the attributes on a prov:Start also apply to a prov:Association?
> DM does not seem to say so.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 14:51:50 GMT

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