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

Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:26:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB86488.1050005@gmail.com>
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>, paulo <paulo@utep.edu>
Hi William,

You can actually find a mapping from PML to OPM here : 
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings#Proof_Markup_Language

Don't know if the PML folks agree exactly with it. But that's why we 
thought our proposal was reasonable.

Thanks,
Paul



William Waites wrote:
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> -w
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 14:31:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 October 2010 14:31:58 GMT