W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: PROV-N to PROV-O mapping

From: Héctor Pérez-Urbina <hector@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:27:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKSqmQ5fm9zGH9t0YEO=6LFT744viq-jW=qb_5sWJhVutvDySA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>, Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.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.


Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 14:28:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:09:00 UTC