Re: Relationship between PROV-O and PROV-DM

Hi Stian,


On 07/12/2012 10:32 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> I think it looks really good, it is not too verbose. I also like that
> PROV-N expressions are linked in. It would fit as an (informative?)
> appendix to PROV-DM.

I think this appendix can be made normative. When we finally have
prov-xml, we can add a similar informative column.

> About this:
>
>> Bundle constructor ?
> We currently say:
>
>> A prov:Bundle is a named set of provenance descriptions that enables the expression of provenance of provenance. It is important to note that the set of provenance descriptions can assume forms beyond PROV-O triples, such as videotaped testimony or scribbles on a drink napkin. The subclass of Bundle that contains PROV-O assertions is not provided by PROV-O, since it is more appropriate to do so using other recommendations, standards, or technologies. In any case, a Bundle of PROV-O assertions is an abstract set of RDF triples, and adding or removing a triple creates a distinct Bundle of PROV-O assertions.
> I guess what this vagueness tries to say without enforcing anything is
> that a bundle is a resource, so to find the triples of its PROV-O
> statements you need to simply get hold of the resource. We don't say
> if it is an HTTP resource, named graph at an SPARQL endpoint or other
> kind of resource. We might want to use the word "Resource" in here
> though.
>

It would be good to have an anchor to link into this paragraph.

Luc






>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 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 Thursday, 12 July 2012 11:19:07 UTC