Re: [dxwg] Use PROV-O to satisfy provenance requirements

@dr-shorthair sure PROV brings a lot of good opportunities, I'm 100% with you on this. It's just that I am not comfortable with 'importing' elements when they do not bring obvious value. Actually I may not object to the subclass axiom in the end. But that's the point: assessing it as one of the later steps, if we observe that all the more obviously useful PROV elements that we will have imported to meet our requirements would need this subclass axiom.

As for DQV, some of its elements are subclasses to QB because the subclassing brings some useful semantics (formal or informal). Let's look at dqv:QualityMeasurement. It is a subclass of qb:Observation ("A single observation in the cube, may have one or more associated measured values"). But what would dqv:QualityMeasurement be without that subclass axiom? We would have had to redefine quite some fine-grained stuff, including what is an observation, and make our own reference to data cubes. This is quite a contrast with the 'gain' of subclassing dcat:Dataset with prov:Entity. When one knows a resource is a dataset, it doesn't bring much more to know that it is also "a physical, digital, conceptual, or other kind of thing with some fixed aspects; [which] may be real or imaginary." (the definition of prov:Entity)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/128#issuecomment-366093692 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2018 23:12:45 UTC