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

Hi Simon,
Issue is now closed pending review. Issue was addressed in latest version
of document, as summarized in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0192.html
Cheers,
Luc


On 29/07/2011 16:00, 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
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 12:11:17 UTC