Re: Little PROV-O questions

Hi Tim, Simon, and Ivan, and all


Appendix A in prov-dm is normative, and changing it would .... you know 
what.

The group has decided not to formalise the translation between 
serializations, except
for the toplevel concepts listed table 10 of prov-dm.

We had a similar debate for translating types to xml.  We had left this 
to the translators
to solve.

Luc





On 02/12/2013 02:29 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Simon (and Luc),
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:51 AM, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk 
> <mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Hello PROV-O authors,
>>
>> From doing some implementation based on the PROV-O and PROV-DM specs, 
>> I noticed a few things that could be clarified.
>>
>> 1. Two terms defined in PROV-DM are not part of PROV-O and it's not 
>> clearly set out how the same concepts should be expressed in PROV-O. 
>> In particular, PROV-DM definitions use attribute prov:type. I 
>> believe, from previous mails, that this should be expressed as 
>> rdf:type in PROV-O data, but I couldn't find it documented.
>
>
> You are correct, PROV-O uses rdf:type to express prov:type.
> You are also correct that this was not explicitly stated in the HTML 
> document.
> I've added a note into 
> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-starting-point-terms
>
> @Luc, would it make sense to make entries for "type" and "label" in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#cross-references-to-prov-o-and-prov-n ?
>
>> Similarly, I couldn't find information on how to encode prov:label, 
>> which is asked about in the implementation questionnaire maybe 
>> implying it could be used with PROV-O (I assume it maps to rdfs:label).
>
> Yes, this is included in the change I mention above.
>
>>
>> 2. I noticed that qualifiedPrimarySource, qualifiedRevision and 
>> qualifiedQuotation are subproperties of qualifiedInfluence, but not 
>> of qualifiedDerivation. This seems inconsistent with the binary 
>> relations, hadPrimarySource, wasRevisedFrom and wasQuotedFrom which 
>> are subproperties of wasDerivedFrom.
>
> .. and also inconsistent with the subclass hierarchy, where e.g. 
> Revision is a subclass of Derivation.
> We changed the class hierarchy in response to Alan's 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-552_.28Influence_subclasses.29
> So, the natural direction for "readability" would be to make the 
> qualified* sub properties of qualifiedDerivation.
> But we can't make the change this far along.
> Fortunately, the qualification properties are of a different breed 
> than the binary properties and the classes, so we can justify the 
> distinction.
> And, the ranges of the qualified{Revision,PrimarySource,Quotation} are 
> to the specific classes Revision,PrimarySource,Quotation -- which are 
> now subclasses of Derivation thanks to Alan in his issue above.
> So, it all still works out.
>
>
>> Maybe I don't understand the rationale or missed it on the mailing 
>> list, but thought I'd point it out.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> 3. I think the definition/description of prov:value could be better: 
>> "The main value (if there is one) of a structured value." Should the 
>> second "value" be another term?
>
> This was out of date. What is shown was prov-o editorial and taken 
> from rdf:value's definition.
> i've updated the prov:value to be from DM:
>
> provides a value that is a direct representation of an entity
>
> at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#value
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> /
> /
> /
> /
>>
>> thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> Dr Simon Miles
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>> Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm