- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:26:16 +0200
- 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 UTC