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

Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:18:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4CB862AA.8000404@styx.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>, paulo <paulo@utep.edu>
On 10-10-15 14:54, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Let's be concrete, I suppose you are talking about PML,
> - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn PML concepts

There seems to be some amount of duplication between
them. Roughly it looks like Source, Antecedent and
Consequent are somewhat like Artifact and Rule and
Engine have something to do with Process.

It seems to me that it might be difficult to augment
e.g. an opmv:Process with information using PML to
explain exactly what the process has done. (whereas
using, e.g. EvoPat, to explain the nature of a
Process would appear to be quite straightforward).

OTOH it seems quite reasonable to express the Provenance
Element part of PML with OPMV instead, the latter
being able to carry more detailed information.

William Waites                       <ww@styx.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965
Fax: +44 131 464 4948
CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7  281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 14:19:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:59 UTC