Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]

Yes, that's what I meant.  I recall liking provenir's approach when I looked at 
it some weeks ago.

(Sometimes, I find the use of "Upper Ontology" can mean something slightly 
different - as in a very top-level upper ontology.  I tend to think of 
ontologies as layered rather than just upper- and domain-specific.  But that's 
terminology - the principles still hold.)

#g
--

Satya Sahoo 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 
> <mailto: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
>         <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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 17:46:03 UTC