- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:02:07 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Luc, On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 11/07/2012 16:52, 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? > > Luc, > > I think that does it, except that I'd suggest using the function name rather than the syntax production name in the PROV-N column (e.g. "entity" rather than "entityExpression"). Similarly, I'd use the definition name in the PROV-DM column (e.g. "entity" rather than "provdm:entity"), and the term name (e.g. as prov:Entity, rather than provo:Entity) in the PROV-O column. I think this direction makes sense. -Tim > > I think this is particularly particularly useful where a single term on PROV-DM or PROV-N is represented by several terms in PROV-O qualified relations, etc. > > I'd also suggest an introductory statement along the lines of: > > [[ > PROV-DM, PROV-N and PROV-O describe the same underlying provenance data model. This table enumerates the corresponding terms that are introduced in each document. In the case of PROV-O, several terms may be needed to express a single PROV-DM or PROV-N concept, as in the case of qualified relations. > ]] > > #g > -- > >> >> 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 15:04:40 UTC