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

Re: Provenance Data Model FPWD

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:03:40 +0100
Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5612FB58-1001-4448-9C58-8FE898D32F00@garlik.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Ah, I see, my fault.

- Steve

On 11 Oct 2011, at 21:45, David Wood wrote:

> There is no overlap, but there is a nice conceptual suggestion.  I suggested, based on reading the PROV-DM doc, that we should start thinking about ISSUE-33 in relation to non-hierarchical subgraphs.
> 
> Sorry for any confusion.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 14:58, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm struggling to see the overlap between wasComplementOf and the notion of a Subgraph (though based on a very cursory reading of the Prov. Model document), but if that's the case then good, we should just close that issue, on the basis that the Prov. WG will define it at some point in the future.
>> 
>> - Steve
>> 
>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 19:39, David Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
>> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
>> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
>> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
>> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 22:04:23 GMT

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