PROV-ISSUE-107 (interoperability-rdf-serialization): is example provenance serialization in RDF inter-operable? [Formal Model]

• From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
• Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:43:43 +0000
• To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <E1R91up-00046s-I7@barney.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-107 (interoperability-rdf-serialization): is example provenance serialization in RDF inter-operable? [Formal Model]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/107

Raised by: Luc Moreau
On product: Formal Model

I was looking at the workflow example in the formal model document.
This shows an nice application-specific ontology for workflow applications.

I am however concerned about the serialization in RDF.  
Here is an example of assertion:

    <wf:Process rdf:about="#workflowRun">
        <used>
            <wf:ValueAtPort>
                <wf:sawValue rdf:resource="#input"/>
                <wf:seenAtPort rdf:resource="http://www.example.com/workflow1#inName"/>
            </wf:ValueAtPort>
        </used>
        <wf:ranInWorkflowEngine rdf:resource="#workflowEngine"/>
        <wf:wasLaunchedBy rdf:resource="#aUser"/>
        <wf:wasDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.example.com/workflow1#workflow"/>
    </wf:Process>

In heterogeneous systems, we need to be able to understand the provenance without internal knowledge of the specific components. 

Unfortunately, in this example, we can only make sense of this serialization if we understand the ontology.  
For instance,
  ws:Process  -> prov:ProcessExecution
  wf:wasDefinedBy -> prov:hadRecipeLink
  wf:wasLaunchedBy -> prov:wasControlledBy


I was expecting that a serialization of PROV-DM would expose the concepts defined in the model directly.

Luc

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 21:43:45 UTC