- From: Héctor Pérez-Urbina <hector@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:27:28 -0500
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>, Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
- Message-ID: <CAKSqmQ5fm9zGH9t0YEO=6LFT744viq-jW=qb_5sWJhVutvDySA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi James, Thank you for your response. I hope you find the attached document useful. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Héctor, > > I'm not sure if anyone has responded to this, if not, sorry for the delay.. > The history there is that the ProvRDF page was started when it started to > become clear that it was difficult to keep the PROV-O and PROV-N notations > (as described in the two large documents) synchronized. To my knowledge, > the ProvRDF page stopped being maintained once the existing specifications > had stabilized to the point where it was possible to keep track of the > individual changes. I believe Tim Lebo and Stian Soiland-Reyes were the > main maintainers. > > Giving a clear mapping between the two is important, e.g. for really being > sure about how to enforce constraints on PROV-O-encoded provenance, but > doing so has also been more or less placed outside of the scope of the WG's > remit, rather it is something that could be done by a future WG or member > submission once the need for it is clear. I believe this was for pragmatic > reasons, i.e. lack of energy/volunteers. (Someone should correct me if I'm > wrong, not speaking for the group here). > > Nevertheless, it would be great to bring the ProvRDF page up to date with > the CR versions of everything, before the wiki is frozen, and perhaps link > to it from the FAQ. Something similar could be done with the XML schema, > but there the mapping is a lot more obvious. If you are already working on > understanding the mapping, and have suggestions on how to bring the mapping > page up to date, I'm happy to make the changes (if no one else is). If > there is enthusiasm for developing this to the point that it could be > included in a note, e.g. PROV-SEM, so much the better. > > --James > > > On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:17 PM, Héctor Pérez-Urbina <hector@clarkparsia.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > We have been working on capturing the various PROV inferences in an > ontology by extending the PROV ontology (PROV-O). > > In the process we were wondering if you guys have defined a mapping > between PROV-N and PROV-O. We have been resorting to analyzing the test > cases in order to find these correspondences. This is obviously suboptimal > and error-prone. > > We came across the ProvRDF document ( > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF), but it's incomplete and not > up-to-date. Will the WG update this document? > > -- > Best, > Héctor > > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- Best, Héctor
Attachments
- application/pdf attachment: PROV-NtoPROV-Omappings.pdf
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 14:28:35 UTC