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

Fwd: provenance working group draft specs - ready for review

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 13:39:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpCc+qVGidKkp-YF7odvQaqnUT3bkdUy_M8_6xmBrC7og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi All,

Below is an exchange with Dan Brickley about the opportunity to align
with schema.org around activity.

As I say below, the models align well. I think this is something that
we as a group should pursue.

cheers
Paul



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: provenance working group draft specs - ready for review
To: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: SemWeb meetings <sw-meetings@cs.vu.nl>


On 4 May 2012 21:41, Groth, P.T. <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback.
>
> I think the Activity in Web schema aligns nicely with prov and I would
> be keen on doing that. I think all the terms you listed have
> correspondence in prov.With respect to roles (butcher, baker) this is
> supported through prov:role that is attached to the edges one uses to
> connect a thing or agent to an activity.

Ah, I missed that; thanks!

> Your right that prov:Entity acts as a place holder for things
> connected to provenance. Although, we do assign some additional
> semantics to prov:Entity when we add constraints to the model.
>
> Would you mind sending your comments to the whole WG at
> public-prov-comments@w3.org or have me forward them to the group?

Feel free to fwd them directly,

cheers,

Dan

> Thanks
> Paul
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2012 12:00, Groth, P.T. <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I know a number of you are working on provenance related things. The
>>> Provenance Working Group just released a major set of working drafts.
>>> This is cohesive set of drafts and has really settled down.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate you looking into them and providing comments. Also,
>>> if anyone plans to implement these specs I would appreciate hearing
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> To get into the specs, we've prepared some introductory blog posts.
>>> Please have a look.
>>>
>>> PROV: synchronized and ready for your input
>>> - http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/03/prov-synchronized-and-ready-for-your-input/
>>>
>>> The PROV ontology – an update
>>> - http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/04/the-prov-ontology-an-update/
>>>
>>> What is new in the Fourth Working Draft of the PROV provenance model?
>>> - http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/03/what-is-new-in-the-fourth-working-draft-of-the-prov-provenance-model/
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, the group is looking for your feedback and is looking to
>>> finalize the interchange model soon.
>>
>> Thanks for the overviews, the list of docs is a little daunting otherwise.
>>
>> Looking at the activities piece, around
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/#Activity I wonder if
>> there's scope for making sure new schema.org activities/action
>> vocabulary covers these use cases, even if the terminology is not
>> exactly 1:1? There's a proposal at
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions ... key properties
>> for an Activity there are
>>
>> performer -- who performed the action. Person or Organization.
>> location -- where the action was performed.
>> startDate, endDate, duration -- when the action was performed.
>> action -- the action which was performed. URL or Action [new type
>> defined below].
>> item -- upon what the action was performed. Thing.
>> result -- how the world has changed because of the action. Thing.
>> Often Comment, Review, Photograph, BlogPost, ItemList, etc., but
>> complex activity-specific metadata may also be represented with an
>> activity-specific result item.
>>
>> I see a few more details are in the Prov model but not in this
>> proposal, and there are event models like
>> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/papers/Hage11b.pdf not far away too. How do
>> you handle the roles that people play (butcher, baker,
>> candlestickmaker, ...), indicators for verbs etc? From the example it
>> seems the work is put onto the specific activity type, but then I
>> don't see how to say that alice was the 'sound engineer', and bob was
>> the 'lead compositor'? Is that kind of detail in scope? I wonder how
>> much scope there is for a common model here.
>>
>> The only other thing that leaps out from a quick look is
>> "prov:Entity". If someone tells me that some mystery object X is a
>> prov:Entity, have I learned anything about X? Are there any things
>> that aren't a prov:Entity? I get feeling it's a kind of place marker
>> rather than a distinctive type, a way of hinting "this description is
>> talking about the provenance of these things..."?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
> Artificial Intelligence Section
> Department of Computer Science
> VU University Amsterdam


-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 11:40:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 May 2012 11:40:17 GMT