Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

Hi Tim,
Yes we use such notes to also propagate "trust" information

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 12 Feb 2012, at 20:54, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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