Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

On 10/07/2012 20:51, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> While the prov-rdf mapping has been a useful tool for the design of the ontology and the data model,
> it has never been the intent of the WG that a mapping (even simplified) was going to be part of a REC.
> I would even argue that this is not part of our charter.
>
> This said,  PROV-O qualified classes correspond to PROV-DM concepts.
> The name of a PROV-DM core relation is also the name of the corresponding PROV-O property.
>
> So, is just a matter of a table of prov-dm concepts and their corresponding classes in prov-o?
> This table could be added in appendix.

Luc,

I think a table might do it.  I just think that it needs to be clear how they 
line up.  The naming has sufficient variations that they're not enough for the 
purpose of a standard, IMO.

#g
--

> ________________________________________
> From: Paul Groth [p.t.groth@vu.nl]
> Sent: 10 July 2012 7:42 PM
> To: Graham Klyne
> Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; Luc Moreau; Timothy Lebo; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM (was: Are qualified<Foo>  relations IFPs?)
>
> Hi Graham
>
> PROV-O had cross-refs to PROV-N.
>
> I had asked them to be taken out in my review. I was thinking that the links directly into prov-dm were more informative
>
> Paul
>
> On Jul 10, 2012, at 19:34, Graham Klyne<Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>  wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2012 17:35, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's what I assumed.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Hmmm... the wiki, or a separate NOTE, doesn't really stand as part of W3C REC.
>>
>> I think there's a bit of a gap in the family of specifications if the mapping
>> isn't clear as part of the REC set.  I thought the whole idea was that
>> PROV-DM/PROV-N defined a technology neutral model, and PROV-O was the RDF/OWL
>> realization of that model.  For that to work, we have to know what are the
>> precise correspondences.
>>
>> I don't think we need to describe a mechanical translation process, which I
>> think contributes to the bulk of the wiki page.  I think a table of PROV-N forms
>> and corresponding RDF forms would cover it.  Maybe as an appendix of the PROV-O
>> document, or woven into the cross-reference?
>>
>> I haven't previously been following the PROV-O work so closely, because I
>> thought plenty of others were doing that, so didn't notice this previously.
>>
>> I think it's a potentially serious issue that we need to consider:  why are we
>> producing multiple REC-track specifications if we are not being quite clear
>> about how they relate to each other?  I'd be surprised if this isn't picked up
>> in last-call -- if it isn't, I'd be suspicious that we are not getting enough
>> serious external review.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 23:26:09 UTC