Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

Is there motivation for Notes other than to sneak messages to the visual layer?

note(ann1,[ex:color="blue", ex:screenX=20, ex:screenY=30])
It seems to me that this is simply data modeling and NOT provenance modeling.
If it is _only_ data modeling, I think that it should stay out of PROV, which should focus on modeling only provenance.


Underneath the surface of Notes is the age old debate of "characterizing attributes" versus "non-characterizing attributes".

-Tim


On Feb 12, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Of course you can use constructs however you want. I don't think Note was intended as such so it seems that discussing this usage would be out of scope. 
> 
> Why confuse potential adopters of the spec?
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Feb 12, 2012, at 21:15, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> 
>> There was some discussion on the prov-o team about this. "Note" could be used for describing provenance
>> statements in an informal way with custom annotations.
>> Therefore, IMO some people could use it for metadata provenance even if that is not the intention on DM.
>> For example: I could add annotations about all the usages (since the note is about a record) stating who is the author
>> of that assertion.
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 2012/2/12 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was just having a look through the ProvRDF mappings page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
>> 
>> In the Note section there is a concern "but NOT for the much heavier-duty use that DM offers (meta-provenance)."
>> 
>> The DM does not use Note for meta provenance so I don't know where this is coming from.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Paul
>> 
>>