- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:03:07 +0100
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jun Zhao wrote: >> When I looked at both OPM and PML, I thought there was a core of ideas >> common to >> both that included "resources", "processes", "provenance" and some >> fundamental >> ways in which they are related. I think it's this core of inescapable >> notions >> and their relationships that's maybe more interesting than their >> individual >> definitions. > > Would you care to clarify this? OK, let's take this illustration from the OPM vocab spec (http://open-biomed.sourceforge.net/opmv/ns.html) as an example: http://open-biomed.sourceforge.net/opmv/img/opmv_main_classes_properties_3.png When I view this image, I see three key concepts: "artifact" "process" "agent" But what really makes them work together as elements of a provenance model is the relationships between them: "used", "wasGeneratedBy", "wasControlledBy", "wasDerivedFrom". And when I look at PML, I find, for example at http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/Proof_Markup_Language#Vocabulary, a diagram containing: "NodeSet" "InferenceStep" related by "hasAntecedent" and "isConsequentOf". To my mind, at a high level of abstraction, "NodeSet" is a case of "artifact"; "InferenceStep"is an instance of "process", "hasAntecedent" is an instance of "used", isConsequentOf" an instance of "wasGeneratedFrom". Because PML is particularly focused on formal proof structures, there are many additional concepts there that don't have a corresponding explicit recognition in OPM, but at this stage I think it's the high-level, general purpose concepts we need to isolate. ... Interestingly, in attempting to answer this question, I failed to locate the source of information about PML that I had read previously, where I thought there was a more complete summary. I wasd looking for a visualization of the OWL provenance module ontology for PML, but a quick search failed to find one. (As a suggestion to the RPI people here, an easily accessible E-R style diagram of the elements of your ontologies, module-by-module, might make your materials easier to absorb.) One thing I did find, which I read as supoporting my position here, is the RPI submission for the 3rd OPM challenge, described here: http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/TetherlessPC3 which lists the following mapping of concepts, via an RDF vocabulary called "ProtoProv": ProtoProv? OPM PML ---------- --- --- ProtoProv?:Variable Artifact pmlj:NodeSet ProtoProv?:Function Process pmlp:InferenceRule ProtoProv?:Controller Agent pmlp:InferenceEngine ProtoProv?:Usd Used pmlj:hasAntecedentList ProtoProv?:Wgb WasGeneratedBy? pmlj:isConsequentOf ProtoProv?:Wcb WasControlledBy? pmlj:hasInferenceEngine I also found reference to a comparison of OPM and PML on the RPI Tetherless World Constellation wiki, but the document itself is not available for public download (http://tw.rpi.edu/wiki/Image:TW-2009-21.pdf, via http://tw.rpi.edu/wiki/A_Comparison_of_the_OPM_and_PML_Provenance_Models). #g --
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 14:46:42 UTC