Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

yes absolutely, I dont' know which document (possibly dm/possibly all).

I am just trying to see whether the table is useful and addressing 
Graham's concern.

Luc

On 07/11/2012 04:55 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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 16:01:32 UTC