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

Suggested Concepts for Charter

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:40:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4CEAE362.7070406@gmail.com>
To: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi All,

As we discussed on the call from Friday last week, below is the list of 
core concepts from OPM that we think should be in the list that goes 
with the charter.

I actually think there is quite a bit of overlap with the suggested 
concepts from Jim McCusker. Also, from the mappings activity, we know 
these overlap with most of the provenance ontologies.

If no one objects, I would like to put all the concepts we are all 
sending to the mailing list on the wiki and start to group them together.

Does that sound good to everyone?

Comments are appreciated especially if any concept is thought to be 
unnecessary. I'm looking forward to seeing the proposed concepts from 
everyone else.

Hopefully, we can reach a consensus soon.

Thanks,
Paul


Suggest Concepts from OPM
We use opm: as a short cut for open provenance model.

Graph:
- opm:OPMGraph
Definition: a provenance graph is defined to be a record of a past execution
Example: Bob's Website Factory  provides proof in the form of a 
provenance graph that the contract was executed as agreed.

- opm:Account
Definition: An account of the some past execution. Accounts offer 
different levels of explanation for the same execution
Example: Bob's Website Factory and Customers Inc both provide two 
different and conflicting sets of information (i.e. accounts) describing 
the provenance of the production of the the same website.


Nodes:
- opm:Artifact
Definition: Immutable piece of state, which may have a physical 
embodiment in a physical object, or a digital representation in a 
computer system.
Example: BlogAgg would like to know the state of an image before and 
after modification to see if it was modified appropriately


- opm:Process
Definition: Action or series of actions performed on or depend upon 
artifacts, and resulting in new artifacts.
Example:  Alice collects data from public sources and "natural 
experiment" data. Alice then processes and interprets the results and 
writes a report summarizing the conclusions. All these steps should be 
captured.

- opm:Agent (*1)
Definition: Contextual entity acting as a catalyst of a process, 
enabling, facilitating, controlling, or affecting its execution.
Example: Alice starts and facilities the tool SPSS when doing data analysis.


Edges:
- opm:Time (*2)
Example: BlogAgg wants to find the correct originator of the microblog 
who first got the word out.

- opm:Role
Definition: A role designates an artifactís or agentís function in a process
Example: Whether a data file was used as a training or test data set 
when running machine learning algorithms.

- opm:Used, opm:UsedStar
Definition: property to express that an artifact was used by a process.
Example: The panda image was used by BlogAgg to generate a thumbnail image.

- opm:WasGeneratedBy, opm:WasGeneratedByStar,
Definition: property to express that an artifact was generated by a process.
Example: A thumbnail image was generated by Blog Agg using the panda image.

- opm:WasControlledBy (*1)
Definition : property to express that a process was controlled an agent.
Example: SPSS was controlled by Alice.

- opm:WasDerivedFrom, opm:WasDerivedFromStar,
Definition: property to express that an artifact was derived from 
another artifact.
Example: The thumbnail image was derived from the panda image.

- opm:WasTriggeredBy
Definition: property to express that a process was triggered by another 
process.
Example: Report writing was triggered by the interpretation of results.


Extensibility (*3):
- Some form of annotation, based on predicate-value pairs.
Example: The data is of type a customer sales records. The data has size 
100 megabytes.

- Profile mechanisms, including common types, common annotations,
   and common graph templates
Example: The image has a creative commons attribution license. This 
pattern represents the exchange of messages in the http protocol.


(*) indicates terms that require refinement
(*1) Requires better, stricter guidelines for better inter-operabiltiy
(*2) To be better aligned on Time ontology
(*3) To be better specified to facilitate extensibility and to
     be better aligned with RDF-like annotations
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 21:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:00 UTC