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

Re: Quality check of ProvRDF

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:57:26 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <BAF46FC1-FCC1-44FF-9854-F2FD7E48F5CC@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 15, 2012, at 8:48 AM, 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


FWIW, changes to the PROV-N signatures in the ProvRDF page such as:

|asnExpression([id],e,[a],[t],[attrs])
+
|asnExpression(id,e,a,t,[attr_1=val_1, ...])

and

|entity(id, [ attr1=val1, ...])
+
entity(id, [ attr_1=val1, ...])


break the automated alignment check at 

http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage



If you want these signatures to change, please raise an issue against DM.

Thanks,
Tim




> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 15:58:02 GMT

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