W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Little PROV-O questions

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:12:33 +0000
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA7BE4E9B3397E47B684606CB5467F11038A2EC1@UOS-MSG00040-SI.soton.ac.uk>

I will defer to Ivan,


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

From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
Sent: 12 February 2013 6:09 PM
To: Luc Moreau
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Little PROV-O questions

On Feb 12, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Hi Tim, Simon, and Ivan, and all

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

Does that mean I cannot add the sentence:

"The properties rdf:type and rdfs:label are used to express prov:type<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-type> and prov:label<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-label>, respectively."

to a normative section?


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.


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.


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



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:

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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 18:13:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:22 UTC