Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

Got it, thanks.

-Tim

On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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 16:06:42 UTC