provenance working group response to issue-610

Dear James,

First apologies for our late response.  Second, thank you for your interest
in using PROV.

The group has discussed your comment, and suggested a resolution. Your 
comment
was logged as ISSUE-610 in our tracker.

I hope this answers your concern. It would be great if you could
acknowledge this response, letting us know whether it did or not.

Best regards,
Luc


    ISSUE-610 (query profiles and use cases not normative)

  * Original
    email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Dec/0001.html
  * Tracker:https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/610
  * Group Response
      o The query regarded a provenance use case: provenance of
        statements recorded in RDF storage systems. While this is an
        important case, and it is valuable to have interoperability
        here, it is quite specific compared to the breadth of
        applications that the specifications aim to cover.
      o What is being requested is a "profile" of PROV for this use
        case, as an ontology subset.
      o We note that PROV does not talk about "profiles". However, we do
        aim to make it apparent to users how to apply PROV in practice,
        and so allow some consistency in how this is done. In
        particular, we provide the following:
          + A distinction between the core/starting point structures and
            extended structures, to clarify the starting point.
          + A distinction between qualified and unqualified terms and
            structures, to allow additional information about relations
            to be added where required.
          + A component structure, so that parts of PROV can be selected
            and extended as appropriate for each particular use case.
      o The above distinctions are application-agnostic but based on the
        Working Group's knowledge of how provenance is applied in many
        practical domains. From testing to date, we have no evidence
        that another organisation is required.
      o We are further writing an FAQ to help implementers to address
        common questions.
      o We therefore understand that the requested ontology subset is
        valuable, but believe it is beyond the scope of the PROV
        specifications.
  * References:
      o Group
        Resolution:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07#resolution_2
  * Changes to the document:
      o No changes made.


    [edit
    <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR&action=edit&section=3>]



-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm