Re: [ORG] Draft response to PROV WG

Hi Eric,

On 17/02/13 23:36, Eric Stephan wrote:
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. Not sure here...
>              * seems like there might be some opportunities here from a
> W3C perspective to show stronger linkages between ORG and PROV.   If
> even from an informative perspective showing mapping between terms
> might be extremely useful:  E.g. Dublin-Core and PROV-O collaborated
> on a TR to explore such mappings outside the ontology
> .
> I'm not suggesting something so elaborate, but I think it is important
> to keep our options open to explore linkages between different
> organizations.

Hmm. Could you be more precise about what you mean here?

The purpose of this (draft) note is to create a record of what we have 
done in response to the PROV WG feedback and that they are (or are not) 
satisfied by our response. In order to get to the next stage in the W3C 
process we need to be able to present this trail of evidence for each 
item of formal LC feedback. We are in desperate need of getting to 
closure and this is not the time/place for open ended things :)

I don't believe part (3) of the draft response prevents the WG from 
saying more about ORG/PROV-O relationships in the future. So for example 
if someone had time and motivation to develop worked examples of how 
other features of PROV-O could be used with ORG then they could do so in 
the form of a WG note.


> Cheers,
> Eric  Stephan
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Dave Reynolds
> <> wrote:
>> [See earlier message on disposition of ORG issues. This is a proposed draft
>> response to the PROV WG. It would be sent out on behalf of the GLD WG and
>> thus needs WG approval. I would like to seek that approval at next week's
>> call. Dave]
>> Dear Jun (and PROV working group),
>> Thank you again for your helpful and thoughtful comments on the
>> Organization Ontology and its use of PROV-terms.
>> You offered three comments:
>>   1. that prov:wasDerivedFrom should be explicitly or implicitly
>>      asserted
>>   2. that we should check that our intended use of PROV-O would not
>>      lead to any violation of the PROV semantic constraints [1]
>>   3. that we might consider use of PROV invalidation terms
>> 1. prov:wasDerivedFrom
>> We agree with your recommendation that a prov:wasDerivedFrom
>> relationship should exist between the org:originalOrganization and
>> org:resultedFrom Organization of an org:changeEvent. We have adopted
>> your suggestion of expressing this by means of a property chain axiom
>> and have added this axiom to the ontology and added an explanatory
>> example as part of informative section [2].
>> 2. Semantic Constraints
>> We have examined the semantic constraints expressed in [1]. We see no
>> conflict between those and intended usage of ORG. For those terms in
>> ORG which relate to PROV-O terms we see no semantic constraints which
>> would limit usage of the ORG terms themselves. Applications of ORG
>> which make direct use of additional PROV-O terms (e.g. to describe the
>> time period of a change event) should naturally take the semantic
>> constraints on those terms into account. We have included a mention of
>> this in the informative section [2].
>> 3. PROV invalidation terms
>> Thank you for bringing this part of PROV to our attention. There may
>> well be applications of ORG which also wish to express such
>> invalidation information in which case they should be, and are, free
>> to use the relevant PROV-O terms. However, we do not have particular
>> use cases in this area and feel the existing references to PROV-O are
>> sufficient to allow ORG users to decide whether additional parts of
>> PROV-O, like this, are relevant to their usage.
>> We would be grateful if you could confirm if you are content with
>> these responses.
>> Thanks again for your feedback, much appreciated.
>> Dave Reynolds (on behalf of GLD working group)
>> [1]
>> [2]

Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 08:52:28 UTC