- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:21:32 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham, I thought that constraints can always be applied to decide whether provenance descriptions are valid or not. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 5 Jun 2012, at 22:38, "Graham Klyne" <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Something that's been gnawing at the back of my mind is a detail of how the PROV-CONSTRAINTS story plays out. My understanding is that the data model and ontology terms are defined separately from the constraints that underpin some inferences about provenance that are believed to be useful. But we don't want to prohibit someone from using and publishing provenance data without taking care of all the niceties (the "scruffy" approach). > > So how can we know if some arbitrary set of provenance information is intended (or claimed) to conform to PROV-CONSTRAINTS? > > It seems to me that this proposal by Pat Hayes might, if adopted by the RDF group, supply a mechanism that can be used to assert that all the terms of the provenance ontology are being used in accordance with the PROV-CONSTRAINTS, and hence can signal validity of the various inferences described in PROV-CONSTRAINTS. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/AnotherSpin > > #g > -- >
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 05:22:05 UTC