- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:35:31 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Is round-tripping PROV-O and PROV-N a requirement? That could well be a can > of worms. I don't think round-tripping various scruffy provenance is a requirement, as it would become very difficult, specially PROV-O to PROV-N. What if there is an anonymous node representing an activity's start? But "anything" covered by PROV-DM valid by PROV-Constraint should be covered by PROV-O, right? That is the principle we've worked on for the last 6 months or so. > Something I haven't seen in the specs I've is a description of the mapping > between PROV-N and PROV-O (that's one of my comments on PROV-O). Right, we've kept that in the wiki - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF (I'm sure this is quite out of date, using PROV-DM WD3) as you see it can get quite verbose.. would you really want that as part of the spec? Perhaps another note? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 16:36:19 UTC