W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > August 2010

Re: gap analysis (input regarding PML)

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:05:14 +0100
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>, "Arora, Jitin BTE" <jarora@miners.utep.edu>, Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>
Message-Id: <D985990E-37A9-48EB-8AAA-162173BD4A4B@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva wrote:

<snip>

> As a response to my message, Paul cited a European provenance  
> project that according to Luc is based on p-streucture, which pre- 
> dates OPM. The information that p-structure pre-dates OPM, however,  
> is not enough for me to know whether p-structure provides a solution  
> for connecting derivation traces to information sources that I  
> cannot see in OPM of if it does, why the connection was not  
> propagated to OPM. Also, it does not clarify the relation between p- 
> structure/OPM and the technical issues in the original gap analysis.

Hi all,

Being not intimately familiar with either PML or OPM, I'm confused by  
the statements above that suggests that Paulo believes that PML has a  
property that OPM might not have:

"a solution for connecting derivation traces to information sources".

I'm actually not convinced that either OPM or PML has this property.   
To me, both appear to be data formats in which one can represent  
information about *claims* made about derivations and information  
sources, but these claims may or may not be verifiable against reality.

Paulo seems to be referring to aspects of the "infrastructure"  
developed around PML that provide stronger verifiability for  
provenance claims.  These are (I think by design) not specified by  
OPM, but I guess they were considered in other earlier work.

Paulo, can you define this problem (and how PML / surrounding  
infrastructure solves it) more precisely, or point to where it is  
defined in one of the papers mentioned earlier in this discussion (for  
those of us without time to read all of them)?

I think it is an important observation that just having a data format  
for provenance is not enough; there needs to be some infrastructure  
that supports it to provide verifiability.

--James

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 12:06:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 August 2010 12:06:38 GMT