- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:28:16 -0400
- To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TDJcHm6EURP2BdFsobG+vYZAW1MgKPjtACifH_tCx-bw@mail.gmail.com>
I would say that the best practice would be to try to conform to the FRBR model. We (RPI) have outlined application of FRBR to information resources ( http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/parallelIdentitiesOGD) and have produced a mapping of FRBR to PROV (FRIR, in submission at IPAW). The OWL for FRIR ( http://purl.org/twc/ontology/frir.owl) uses the vocab.org version of FRBR ( http://vocab.org/frbr/core). To answer your question more directly, option 2 seems to be the safer approach. You should probably redirect :docInGeneral to :docv2 if you're using this for linked data. In FRBR, docInGeneral is a Work and docv1 and doc are both expressions. Jim On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>wrote: > Hello, > > In working on the primer examples, I thought about a situation which it > seems could commonly occur, but for which the best solution is not clear to > me. > > I create a document and give it an ID, :doc. I make the document public > along with metadata including PROV statements that it was generated by some > activity and suchlike. > :doc a prov:Entity. > :doc prov:wasGeneratedBy :editing. > :doc dcterms:title "What I did on my holidays" > etc. > > I was not expecting to change the document, but later notice a serious > error which means I need to correct it. I describe the new version as a new > entity, :docV2. In describing :doc above, I was describing the document in > general, not a specific version of it, as I didn't expect multiple versions > to exist. I would like to say: > :docV2 prov:specializationOf :doc. > > but some of my statements above, like the wasGeneratedBy, are specific to > the original version. > > So, I could either > (1) Create an entity :docV1, state that :docV1 and :docV2 are > specializations of :doc, and change some of the original statements to be > about :docV1 where specific to the original version. > > (2) Don't change the original statements, treat :doc as referring to the > original version, create an entity :docInGeneral, which :doc and :docV2 are > specializations of, and re-assert each of the above statements about :doc > that are also true for :docInGeneral > > Option (1) seems only possible if we assume copies of the statements do > not exist elsewhere, e.g. have already been downloaded. > > Would guidance on this kind of situation be helpful to have in the best > practices document? > > Is there more general semantic web guidance on what to do when you thought > you were identifying one thing and it turned out to be two? > > Thanks, > Simon > > Dr Simon Miles > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 > > Electronically querying for the provenance of entities: > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/61/ > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 16:29:07 UTC