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

Little PROV-O questions

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:51:02 +0000
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C4016E0A54@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
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. 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).

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. 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?

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/
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 08:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:27 UTC