Re: ISSUE-22: Provenance, and the W3C PROV-XG

On 8.6.2012 20:33, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:

> Work session about Provenance will be quite short on Wednesday, so I want to highlight the fact that we could reuse some of the concepts and relations introduced in the W3C provenance working group, at least to define a RDFS vocabulary for ITS 2.0:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#relations-at-a-glance 
> 
> Something quite interesting about this group is how they managed to deal with both XML and RDF technologies: 
> They built the PROV Data Model http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120503/ and then propose : 
> PROV-XML, an XML schema for the PROV data model 
> PROV-O, the PROV ontology, an OWL-RL ontology allowing the mapping of PROV to RDF
> (+ other specifications, there is a list in the primer document http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/)
> This is part of what I'll speak about Tuesday morning.

Hi,

while it is perfectly OK to explore all possibilities we should keep in
mind that if ITS 2.0 should be success it should be as simple as
possible and should be finished in a timely manner.

We should primary deal with XML representation as in ITS 1.0. Note that
only reason we are talking about RDF is to fulfill the following part of
charter (http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter):

"For HTML5, the prose description of data categories will be normatively
implemented as both a microdata and RDFa Lite 1.1. This approach is
taken in order to avoid the development of a new metadata mechanism for
HTML5 and to avoid adding markup attributes to the HTML5 language. The
only exception MAY be adding the "translate" attribute to the HTML5
language, see the HTML liaison description below."

We already "violated" the charter as the best way to incorporate ITS
markup into HTML5 is using its-* attributes. In past months research
turned out that both microdata and RDFa are inappropriate for
associating metadata with existing document content, they are
appropriate for inline capture of *self standing* metadata which are not
connected to the original fragments of document.

Although I think that given that it doesn't make much sense to work on
MD and RDFa anymore, WG decided to provide such mapping anyway
(https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18).
In this light I would suggest to use all the RDF, OWL and another
SemanticWeb technologies as an additional optional layer on the base ITS
2.0 which should be made in a manner similar to ITS 1.0.

Have a nice day,

     Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------