- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:26:57 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paul, I think this is a very useful contribution, in that illustrates well the sort of things we'd like to offer developers, but one which also (for me) highlights a potential problem. For cases where we have shortcut properties, the expression of provenance is easy as you show, but I worry about a possible lack of graceful refinement/enlargement: that users will have a discontinuity in complexity to face as soon as they try to express something that is not covered by "well-known" shortcut properties. An exercise I'd like to try is to start with the ASN in its current form, and explore 2-3 ways this might be represented in RDF. One of these would be the "direct mapping" represented by the current OWL ontology. Another would use named graphs to wrap *all* provenance statements. A possible third way would invoke some additional vocabulary to define the mapping between short-cut properties and the full structure per ASN. I need to work through this in some detail, but I'm not sure when I'll have time, so I wanted to float these ideas briefly as a kind of heads-up. I think it's worth noting that I think the ASN will be very useful as a "pure" basis for exploring these ideas - I mention this as I may in the past have been less-than-convinced it was actually serving a useful purpose. #g -- On 23/10/2011 09:42, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi All, > > I wrote a post at the Semantic Web Activity News blog about how to write down > some simple provenance statements using PROV-DM > > http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/10/23/5-simple-provenance-statements/ > > Hopefully, this is useful not only for the outside world but to us as well. > > cheers, > Paul >
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 08:53:32 UTC