W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Provenance Data Model FPWD

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:39:31 -0400
Message-Id: <397FF818-48A2-4CE7-A5B3-B36984C9B888@3roundstones.com>
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I encourage all of you to read the subject doc from the Provenance WG, if possible before the ftf:
  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html

Specifically, I think their conception of activities that act on entities (such as by describing them) is useful.  Perhaps their idea of the wasComplementOf relation makes more sense than our loaded and overly-hierarchical concept of a subgraph.  It seems to me that we could avoid a lot of trouble related to our ISSUE-33 if we could relate graphs to one another non-hierarchically:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33

Their modeling of a Activity made me think of g-boxes, for right or wrong.  Although a g-box is an entity in our minds, it matches their definition of an Activity, in that it is something that develops through time and is not necessarily identifiable by it's characteristics at any given point in time.  Perhaps we should challenge our own thinking in regard to a g-box being more of a process than an entity, which I think fits with Sandro's and Andy's recent messages.

The terminology they use will eventually need to map to our g-* terms.

Regards,
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 18:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT