Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

I think that one thing that has been a recurring point in the discussions
I've had with people around OPM is that opm:Artifact and opm:Process are
supposed to correspond to much higher level concepts, specifically
Continuent and Occurrent. If this is the case, then this needs to be
formalized in the the schema and/or ontology. This could address some of the
issues that have been raised in the past.

Jim McCusker

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Satya Sahoo <sahoo.2@wright.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
> Thank you Paul and Luc for putting together this document for discussion.
>
>
> I strongly agree with what Deborah has pointed out that the charter for the
> working group should take into account as many existing provenance models as
> possible and select the most relevant set of provenance terms towards a
> standardization effort.
>
>
> Luc said: - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn PML
> concepts (ditto for other provenance languages). The mapping exercise, to my
> knowledge, did not identify any.
>
>
> Multiple issues were indeed identified during the mapping process, I am
> specifically referring to Provenir ontology to OPM mapping where Luc agreed
> with me that many of the concepts in Provenir represent broader notions of
> provenance as compared to OPM (provenir:data vs. opm:artifact) .
>
>
> Further, many fundamental provenance related, non-causal properties that
> are modeled in the Provenir ontology are not present in OPM. E.g.
> provenir:adjacent_to, provenir: transformation_of etc.
>
>
> As part of the mapping report work, we also identified many provenance
> terms that are clearly not present and given the current structure (as
> defined in the OPM spec v1.1) would not be possible to represent.
>
>
> There are many specific issues in OPM related to the inferencing, modeling
> of properties etc., which I have repeatedly pointed out to Luc, Paul and
> Paolo and given specific examples from the Provenir ontology.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:55 am
> Subject: Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter
> To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>
> Cc: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <
> public-xg-prov@w3.org>, paulo <paulo@utep.edu>
>
> > Deborah,
> >
> > I think we should not forget the work that the incubator has done.
> > I do not understand your statement "there is strong a bias when
> > one
> > starts with one
> > and tries to shoehorn in the others."
> >
> > 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
> >
> > (ditto for other provenance languages).
> >
> > The mapping exercise, to my knowledge, did not identify
> > any.  Please
> > correct me if
> > I am wrong.
> >
> > This issue needs to be nailed down. I am happy to have a
> > teleconference
> > at some other
> > mutually convenient time. But, we need to be able to justify our
> > position.  It's important
> > to do it soon, because we can't write a final report properly
> > with
> > knowing what the conclusions
> > are.
> >
> > Regarding the "fast" aspect, I think it is crucial too.
> > Otherwise,
> > somebody else
> > will do it, de-facto way!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Luc
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/15/2010 02:33 PM, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> > >  On 10/15/2010 8:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> > >> Hi Deborah,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your response. This is exactly the sort of
> > discussion we
> > >> wanted to start.
> > >>
> > >> Luc and I wrote the proposal with the notion that we wanted a
> > fast
> > >> working group.
> > > Fast working groups are good but I think we should focus on
> > the
> > > outcome rather than fast.  it is not that fast precludes
> > quality but
> > > we should not focus on fast and have that preclude other
> > options that
> > > may be considered more representative of the broader
> > provenance
> > > community.
> > >> With that in mind we thought it would be good to start with
> > something
> > >> already existing and not develop a whole new model.
> > Additionally, we
> > >> think that OPM is already a subset of what's out there
> > already
> > >> including PML. I think the DAML+OIL comparison is not so apt
> > because
> > >> OPM was already developed through a community process.
> > > Actually I think the DAML+OIL model is quite apt.
> > > DAML was developed by a large DARPA program over years with
> > many
> > > participants.
> > > OIL also was developed by a consortium of people as well over
> > time
> > > (and actually there was a little bit of overlap in the authors
> > but it
> > > was relatively small).
> > > Both grew up at about the same time.
> > > While this is looking back, I would venture to say that if
> > either went
> > > in as a proposed standard without engaging the other
> > community, either
> > > would have had a VERY hard time getting through a standards
> > body
> > > DESPITE the fact that each had a significant community who had
> > worked
> > > on them.
> > > What happened was that  an adhoc US/UK working group self
> > formed to
> > > put something together that reflected what the authors thought
> > > captured the essence of both.
> > >
> > > OPM was emerging in approximately the same timeframe as some
> > of the
> > > other contender provenance models.  I agree of course
> > that it came out
> > > of a community but it did not include much participation from
> > some
> > > other communities.
> > >
> > > I think we need to look at what is out there now and determine
> > what
> > > the starting point should be and I do not think that OPM
> > reflects the
> > > starting point for some of the other communities.
> > >> Furthermore, as we say in the draft, OPM is the starting point
> > > My objection is to taking OPM  as the starting point.
> > > I think there is too strong a bias when one starts with one
> > and tries
> > > to shoehorn in the others.
> > >
> > > Paulo in particular had raised a number of issues when he was
> > trying
> > > to look more deeply at connections and embedded assumptions.
> > >
> > >> and would change over the coarse of the working group.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, since you have a lot of experience on these working
> > groups, I
> > >> was wondering how you think we could design the charter to
> > make
> > >> production of a recommendation as fast as possible with the
> > approach
> > >> you have in mind?
> > > I agree that having one starting point and refining may be
> > considered
> > > to be a fast approach  but if one really thinks there may
> > be
> > > significant changes, then that may not be the case.  I
> > think though
> > > that it could easily be interpreted as biasing the outcome
> > towards
> > > that starting point (and i would interpret it that way and
> > would be
> > > unhappy).
> > > I think though we need to be open to other starting points so
> > i think
> > > we have to be open to other starting points.
> > >
> > > I see two routes that could be taken (and of course there are more).
> > > 1 - write a charter now that takes starting points as input
> > > 2 - follow the owl model and form an adhoc working group whose
> > aim it
> > > is to come up with a joint submission for the starting point.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Also, at least from my reading, it seems that you would
> > endorse
> > >> having a a working group work for a standard provenance
> > model. Is
> > >> that correct?
> > > I  support a working group to come up with a recommended
> > provenance
> > > model.
> > > I  do NOT support a working group that takes a single
> > starting point
> > > and aims to refine that one to come up with the recommendation.
> > >>
> > >> thanks,
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> > >>>  Greetings,
> > >>> Thanks for the work on the draft charter.
> > >>> I am sending this quickly because i just read the beginning
> > and have
> > >>> a significant problem with the slant of the charter with the
> > >>> position of
> > >>> "The goal of this working group is to refine the Open
> > Provenance Model"
> > >>> and thought I should air this immediately upon seeing the draft.
> > >>>
> > >>> I strongly believe that the charter of a working group that
> > would
> > >>> end up with a provenance recommendation should start with
> > the
> > >>> contender models and take the best aspects from many of them
> > RATHER
> > >>> than starting with one model and refining it.  I
> > strongly oppose the
> > >>> position that the charter should take any single model and
> > work to
> > >>> refine it.  I would propose rather that this group
> > would work like
> > >>> the recent RIF working group or others where contender
> > starting
> > >>> points were submitted  or like the OWL working group
> > where two
> > >>> contenders emerged - DAML and OIL and members from each side
> > worked
> > >>> to create a submission - DAML+OIL that truly took elements
> > from both
> > >>> languages and ended up with a joint proposal rather than
> > this way
> > >>> that just takes a single model as a starting point.
> > >>>
> > >>> There was some disappointment in the group when we chose to
> > map the
> > >>> other contender models to a single model, but most if not
> > all
> > >>> understood that decision from the perspective of time.
> > I can not
> > >>> say though that i (or i expect others who were disappointed)
> > could
> > >>> go along with this position in a proposed charter.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am sorry that this comes from someone who did not
> > participate
> > >>> nearly as much as I had hoped to.
> > >>> I had an extremely bad year with my mother's multiple
> > >>> hospitalizations and general overwhelming health problems
> > and her
> > >>> subsequent passing.   I simply have had no choice
> > but to put
> > >>> everything other than family health at a much lower priority.
> > >>>
> > >>> Deborah
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 10/15/2010 7:58 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> > >>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Today on the call we are scheduled to talk about
> > preparations for
> > >>>> the final report. Luc and I feel that to write a compelling
> > final
> > >>>> report we should be clear about exactly what the report
> > should
> > >>>> recommend. There has been some consensus that a working
> > group
> > >>>> should be formed around the recommendations extracted from
> > the
> > >>>> scenarios (
> > >>>>
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Recommendations_for_scenarios).
>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To that end, we have prepared a draft working group charter
> > (
> > >>>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lavm/draft-charter.html ). We
> > note
> > >>>> this is only *our own* proposal and we see this as a
> > starting point
> > >>>> for discussion within the group.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We look forward to any comments, questions, thoughts about
> > this
> > >>>> proposal. We hope this helps the group to continue to
> > coalesce
> > >>>> around a way forward.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Paul and Luc
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Professor Luc Moreau
> > Electronics and Computer Science   tel:
> > +44 23 8059 4487
> > University of
> > Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> > Southampton SO17
> > 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > United
> > Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> >
>



-- 
Jim
--
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu