Re: PROV-ISSUE-449: Better definition of prov:value [prov-dm]

Graham noted in his prov-o review [1]:

[[[
 But, maybe more fundamentally, is there any specified way to express a value that is itself denoted by a URI?  
 In OWL terms, this needs an object property. It's OK if ther4e's no such way, as one can always introduce new properties, 
 but it seems odd to me that data values are OK but other values are not.
]]]



After discussing this with Jim McCusker, I'm convinced that prov:value is the literal analogue to prov:specializationOf.

In:
      :my_calculation_result prov:value 4.5 .

or
       :my-copied-test prov:value "For score" .

Both subjects _are_ specializations of their objects, and their objects have relatively few fixed aspects (abstract mathematical relationship, a string length, etc).



I'm not sure if we want to mix prov:specializationOf into the discussion of prov:value, but this ISSUE is about the need for a clearer definition of prov:value.

Also, I think the answer to Graham's question is "we have a way to express a value of a URI - prov:specializationOf".


Thanks,
Tim





[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Review_of_prov-o_july_3_2012_for_last_call#Graham



On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-449: Better definition of prov:value [prov-dm]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/449
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: prov-dm
> 
> Although we know that prov:value is very useful,
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-value
> 
> does not provide a satisfactory definition.
> 
> We are copying rdf:value: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value which provides an equally unsatisfying definition: 
> 
> [[[
> rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used in describing structured values.
> 
> rdf:value has no meaning on its own. It is provided as a piece of vocabulary that may be used in idioms such as illustrated in example 16 of the RDF primer [RDF-PRIMER]. Despite the lack of formal specification of the meaning of this property, there is value in defining it to encourage the use of a common idiom in examples of this kind.
> ]]]
> 
> Can we do better?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 16:02:27 UTC