Re: provenance ontology in the Organization Ontology

Hi Paul,

I raised this question on the GLD working group list at the start of 
this week.

While there are several deployed uses of ORG I'm not aware of any that 
depend on the OMPV relationship so it *may* be reasonable to change to 
using PROV-O without triggering a deprecation or namespace-change cycle.

Will you, or anyone else, be publishing mappings between PROV-O and 
deployed vocabularies like OPMV? If so that would ease concerns over 
possibly breaking existing usage.

There is also the issue timing and having ORG publication dependent on 
PROV-O publication. I had misunderstood the status of PROV-O but now 
understand it is in Last Call.

When do you expect to publish the next version and will that be another 
Last Call WD or will it be moving to CR?

Dave

P.S. Apologies to gld-chairs if I shouldn't have replied directly, 
seemed appropriate in this case.


On 03/10/12 16:15, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was just reading the Organization Ontology [1]. Good job on a nice
> and useful ontology.
>
> I did however have a comment. Currently, you subclass OPMV for your
> provenance ontology. Given that the W3C is producing a recommended
> provenance ontology PROV-O [2] (now in last call). I was wondering if
> you could consider moving to prov or is there a reason to stick with
> OPMV?
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> co-chair W3C Provenance Working Group
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20120405/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>    Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:38:19 UTC