- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:23:06 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya, > This is my perspective flowing from my understanding how the conceptual > model and the formal model relate to each other: > rdfs:subClassOf in the conceptual model translates to "specialization." For > example file is a specialization of entity (similarly for > rdfs:subPropertyOf). > In the conceptual model and formal model documents, we should include the > above details, that is the mechanism for extending the provenance model for > domain-specific (under "extensibility" section). Sure, but I think this is still in terms that make sense for the formal model not the conceptual model. What does specialisation mean with regard to: bob(e4) Does it mean adding attributes, e.g. [type: "file"]? Or having another assertion "file(e4)" which implies "bob(e4)"? Or an independent assertion in a form outside the scope of PIL but able to be asserted along with PIL statements, e.g. { bob(e4); e4 rdfs:subclassOf ns:file }? And how do I express a sub-property of "isGeneratedBy" in PIL? > I am not sure if you were suggesting to describe domain-specific details > (royal society etc.) in the conceptual model document (except as part of the > examples)? There is already some domain-specific information in the examples, e.g. creator: "Alice", but as said in the original issue description, it is not clear exactly what is domain-specific and what is generic. More importantly, there is no general statement of how domain-specific information could be included. Thanks, Simon > Thanks. > Best, > Satya > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Satya, >> >> I agree that it sounds a sensible approach for the formal model. >> >> The important point is that however we explain how to include >> domain-specific information in the conceptual model should match the >> way we allow it in the formal model. >> >> I am not clear how rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf translate >> into inclusion of domain information in the conceptual model / PIL, >> and this is exactly the kind of thing I was pushing to be clarified. >> >> Thanks, >> Simon >> >> On 4 August 2011 16:01, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > In ontology engineering we have the notions of a "upper-level >> > ontology(s)" >> > and "domain-specific ontology(s)". The upper-level ontology - the PIL >> > provenance model in our case, is extended to model domain specific >> > details - >> > the royal society details described by Simon, using sub class >> > (rdfs:subClassOf) and sub property links (rdfs:subPropertyOf). >> > This allows different applications to "subscribe" to a common >> > upper-level >> > ontology and add their own domain-specific details as needed without >> > affecting other applications. >> > Thanks. >> > Best, >> > Satya >> > p.s: We did in the context of the Provenir ontology earlier for >> > biomedicine >> > and taverna [1] - see Quick Links >> > [1] http://wiki.knoesis.org/index.php/Provenir_Ontology >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'd like to add: >> >> >> >> I think it is important that when domain specific information is added, >> >> it >> >> appears in such a way that applications that do not understand it can >> >> safely >> >> ignore it and still be able to use the underlying generic provenance >> >> information. >> >> >> >> This shouldn't be hard to achieve, but I think it's an important >> >> principle >> >> to underpin extensibility. >> >> >> >> #g >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data >> >>> combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] >> >>> >> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/65 >> >>> >> >>> Raised by: Simon Miles >> >>> On product: Conceptual Model >> >>> >> >>> Any provenance data will be a mixture of PIL constructs and >> >>> domain-specific information, e.g. file names, the Royal Society's >> >>> membership, the event of the RS's foundation, etc. By domain-specific, >> >>> I >> >>> just mean things not defined in the conceptual model. It is not clear >> >>> in the >> >>> current document where this domain-specific information goes. >> >>> >> >>> There are a couple of hints about where it might go: >> >>> >> >>> 1. In the example, the attribute values appear to be domain-specific, >> >>> e.g. "Alice" is not a generic part of the model. The attribute names >> >>> might >> >>> be domain-specific, as I don't think "type", "location", "creator" or >> >>> "content" are defined in the model, but that might be a mistake in the >> >>> model. Can attribute types be domain-specific? >> >>> >> >>> 2. Section 5.12 says that "there are numerous ways in which location >> >>> can >> >>> be specified", suggesting that it is made a domain-specific issue. I'm >> >>> not >> >>> clear whether the list of examples, "coordinate, address..." are >> >>> examples of >> >>> attribute types or something else. It is said that "Location is an >> >>> OPTIONAL >> >>> characteristics of BOB". I'm not sure if "characteristic" is related >> >>> to >> >>> "attribute", and if this is implying a generic attribute type called >> >>> "location". >> >>> >> >>> But are there additional ways to include domain-specific information >> >>> other than attribute types and values? It may be trivial to address, >> >>> but >> >>> seems important to make explicit, else it is not clear how to apply >> >>> the >> >>> language in practice. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Simon >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________________ >> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> > ______________________________________________________________________ >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Simon Miles >> Lecturer, Department of Informatics >> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK >> +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 17:23:34 UTC