Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

Would this go into an appendix?
I think it's a bit distracting at the beginning of DM.

-Tim

On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 
> Hi Graham, all
> 
> I tried to outline a possible table. I just did it for a couple of rows, obviously, we need
> to continue for the others.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> It appears at the beginning of section 1
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-table.html#data-model-components
> 
> (Ignore the rest of the document)
> 
> Thanks,
> Luc
> 
> 
> On 07/11/2012 12:07 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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 Wednesday, 11 July 2012 15:58:06 UTC