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

Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

From: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:42:16 -0600
Message-ID: <4CB86848.4020607@utep.edu>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
CC: William Waites <ww@styx.org>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Paul,

Jim has proposed a nice mapping between OPM and PML and I cannot tell 
how much I appreciate his effort. This is somehow what I call an 
intuitive mapping since some concepts seems to be very similar.

However, when one reviews these concepts, contrast them with their 
official definitions, and more importantly, try to use them to encode 
the provenance of some use cases, one sees that almost none of these 
mappings hold -- I will refer again to my tech report contrasting OPM 
and PML.

Many thanks,
Paulo.

> 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 14:42:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 October 2010 14:42:58 GMT