Re: provenance ontology in the Organization Ontology

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the update that's good news.

Regards
Paul

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Dave Reynolds
<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Just to let you know that the working group agreed on Thursday's telecon
> to switch the ORG ontology to use PROV-O.
>
> So I've made that change in the latest version.
>
> We believe the the terms in PROV-O we now use have the same semantics as
> the OMPV terms we used before. Since, in any case, we are not aware of
> anyone directly using the current OPMV links in ORG we felt it was
> possible to make this change without having a formal mapping to reference.
>
> Best wishes,
> Dave
>
>
> On 03/10/12 16:50, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> In terms of timing, so far it seems we are on track to go to CR by
>> November 15, 2012. We are processing public comments right now and
>> there doesn't seem to be any design changes but we still need to get
>> through everything.
>>
>> The mapping from OPMV - PROV is straightforward. It's not in the remit
>> of the WG but we can check with the group (in particular Jun Zhao) if
>> anyone was planning on doing this. If this is what's needed to get
>> adoption I'm sure we can find some time.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
--
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 Monday, 8 October 2012 08:36:20 UTC