Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

Hi Luc,

> One counter-question:  Do the attributes on hasAnnotation records refer to
> the annotated thing, the note linked to the annotated thing, or to "the
> hasAnnotation record itself"?
>
>  that is, are the following equivalent:
>
>  note(n2,[ex:style="dotted"])
> hasAnnotation(u1,n2)
>
>
>  and
>
> hasAnnotation(u1,n2,[ex:style="dotted")
>
>
>
> To me they are *not* equivalent.
>
> According to description in Section 5.3.4 and Section 5.2.4 in DM TPWD,
they are equivalent - both set of assertions convey the information that
the provenance record u1 has a "style" (not explained whether it is
document style or rendering style) "dotted". Can you please clarify how
they are not equivalent?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


>
>  There are no examples in the DM document showing hasAnnotation with a
> non-empty list of attributes.
>
>
> I think we could subtype the relation hasAnnotation: hasTrustAnnotation,
> hasReputationAnnotation, ...
>
> Luc
>
>  --James
>
>  On Feb 13, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
> Having looked at the ProvRDF mapping, I don't understand
> the type of note.
> I was expecting a class Note to be introduced, and the annotation relation
> to be allowed for anything identifiable in PROV, so, this means,
> elements but also relations.
>
> Luc
>
> On 02/12/2012 10:29 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> 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> 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>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>