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

Re: Suggested Concepts for Charter

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:19:24 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=0iX3wU-tE26Fxz=SKPnmOYM2fQZ_vZ4nO+xt4@mail.gmail.com>
To: pmissier@acm.org
Cc: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Yes, I agree with you in the "adjacent_to" property. I was more concerned
about the "located_in" property, which I associated to explicit coordinates
of the sensor or buoy at a certain time, but as Paul explained it might be
better a recommendation than a property of the core.

Best,
Daniel

2010/11/24 Paolo Missier <pmissier@acm.org>

>  Daniel,
>   I expressed my POV on spatial relations in the discussion page:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Talk:Proposal_for_a_Working_Group_on_Provenance
> point (p2)
> would you not agree that space and time are different in the way they
> should be considered as provenance-related properties?
>
> -Paolo
>
>
>
> On 24/11/2010 12:56, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
> I am sorry, I think i didn't express myself correctly. I meant that in the
> last calls i felt like the definitions for provenance about provenance
> (provenance metadata) where out of the scope the WG, which would be more
> centered in finding the core concepts for provenance in general.
>
> Also, there exist some ontologies for modelling time... should we leave the
> time parameters out of the core and add them in the best practice guide too?
> Best,
> Daniel
>
> 2010/11/24 Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Your correct, the mappings can be a guide. This actually doesn't have to
>> be a huge task. Just put all the concepts that are close to one another
>> together on the wiki. I would do it but won't be able to today.
>>
>> I think defining the core concepts for provenance on the web is exactly
>> what the WG should be doing. Otherwise, I don't know what the WG should do?
>>
>> Finally, there are many other widely used ontologies that define spatial
>> relationships. One can say that "where" is an important concept in
>> provenance but I would suggest that defining "where" and relationships
>> between where is outside the scope of the WG. It may be something that
>> should be put in the best practice guide. i.e. use ontology x for spatial
>> descriptions.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Paul, Paulo, all.
>>> For the grouping of concepts we could also use the mappings between
>>> vocabularies (many similar concepts have been mapped to opm entities
>>> there).
>>>
>>> Paulo, I have read over the proposed concepts posted in the wiki, but I
>>> don't see how any of those can be grouped as provenance metadata. I
>>> agree that it is very important to have a minimum core of concepts for
>>> this task because it relevant for some of the scenarios, but in the last
>>> telecons i got the feeling that was out of the scope of the WG. The DC
>>> Metadata provenance task group [1] (Led By Kai Eckert and Michael
>>> Panzer) is focused on this task.
>>>
>>> Finally, why the spatial parameters should be excluded from the core? In
>>> the end is metadata about where the artifact/experiment/document has
>>> been produced...
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:20:05 UTC

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