Re: PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On Ontology [Formal Model]

Hi Luc,
most if not all of the terms you ennumerated in your list have been
included in the ontology.
EntityInRole, preceeded and Revision have been deleted.

Since there are existant comments from the most recent version of the
ontology, I propose
to close this issue.

Thoughts?
Thanks,
Daniel

2011/10/6 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

>
> PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On
> Ontology [Formal Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/116
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Formal Model
>
> Comments about ontology
> -----------------------
>
> Ultimately, all concepts/notions of PROV-DM need to be serializable in
> RDF, and
> most of them are likely to be reflected in the ontology.
>
> At the moment, the document is silent about:
> - time
> - account
> - provenance container (class defined but not illustrated)
> - qualifiers
> - annotations
> - attributes
> - all derivation variants
> - collections
>
> I would expect all to be discussed in some form. They don't necessarily
> require a
> new concept in the ontology, but we need to be able to see how they are
> mapped.
>
> Vice-versa, the ontology introduces notions that are not obviously mapped
> to
> PROV-DM.
> - EntityInRole
> - provo:Revision differs from provdm:wasRevisionOf
> - preceded
> - OWL2 annotation properties (e.g. rdfs:label, comment, seeAlos,
> isDefineBy,
>  owl:deprecated,
> versionInfo,priorVersion,backwardCompatibleWith,incompatibleWith   ...)
>
> Are they necessary for interoperability? Should they be made explicit in
> Prov-DM,
> or how are they mapped to PROV-DM?
>
> Finally, PROV-DM comes with a set of constraints which do not seem to
> have all be captured.  As a minimum, the document should state which
> ones are not captured by the ontology, but should be enforced by other
> means (it's OK to say TBD later).
>
>
>
>
>