- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:55:56 +0000
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|131d98eab531ec3bbfb921960ad46afbo24Lu808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F55366C>
Yes, I am fine with closing it Daniel. Cheers, Luc On 05/03/12 16:12, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Luc, > the current ontology has the concepts you were proposing to model the > example. > Although the best practices document has still to be updated, I think > this issue > can be closed. > > Thoughts? > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2011/9/30 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk > <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 22:43, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker > <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org>> wrote: > > > I was expecting that a serialization of PROV-DM would expose the > concepts defined in the model directly. > > I left out the "duplicate"/inferred properties and classes from PROV > on purpose due to the verbosity of the RDF/XML format - and because > this example is to show how an ontology can be extended using OWL. (If > not then people might wonder why they should extend the PROV ontology > at all) > > > I still included a note: > > > Note that the example above does not show the inferred classes > and properties from the PROV ontology. For interoperability, > applications should also expressed such inferred statements, so > that the provenance can be read without using OWL2 inferencing and > the customized ontologies. > > > but I guess this could be made more explicit - like a second example > showing what are the inferred PROV entities which should also be > asserted, or one showing both of these merged. > > > As my example section was already long enough, and doing so at this > point would make it harder to modify the example, I didn't do this. > > > We could also do a hybrid and always use prov:properties , as most of > the properties have sensible rdfs:range we can infer that something is > a ProcessExecution if it is in the other end, and don't need to > declare that type. Would that be acceptible as interoperable - or > would the applications not even be able to RDFS inferencing of the > PROV ontology? (Which would bring up again Satya's point about why use > semantic web stack without using it) > > I just made > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/examples/ontology-extensions/workflow/workflow-inferred.rdf > to show what it would look like if we include the PROV terms > explicitly (179 lines vs 138 lines in workflow.rdf vs 88 lines in > workflow.ttl) . This should be understandable by a pure RDF parser > without any reasoning - except that <Role> is a subclass of <Entity> > that is. > > > (Note that this example uses <Role> in the meaning of <EntityInRole> - > and the experimental properties <assumedBy> and <assumedRole> pending > ISSUE-103) > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 21:58:42 UTC