- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:36:57 +0000
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|2cb7404d9725ac4c64be25cd39fd2be7o24Gb108l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F54EBA9>
Hi Daniel, yes, it's fine to close the issue. Luc On 05/03/2012 16:29, Daniel Garijo wrote: > 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 <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@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). > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:39:37 UTC