Re: Suggested Concepts for Charter

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I am on the same board as you. dc:provenance is a very vaguely 
defined property.


Simon Miles wrote:
> Hi Jun,
> 
> The reason I did not suggest dc:provenance is that it appears rather
> ill-defined - just somewhere that you put provenance information of
> any form if structured provenance is not what you primarily care
> about.  I would say that its range (ProvenanceStatement) corresponds
> to an OPM graph, though one possibly limited to describing the history
> of a single resource (but I'm not clear whether that means that all
> processes in the graph would necessarily involve an instance of the
> resource).
> 
> It could be compared to the HTTP provenance field proposed by others
> earlier, but wouldn't be quite the same as it does not restrict the
> model of the provenance information it refers to.

That's actually the underlying reason I want to see dc:provenance on the 
list. I would like to see a standard way of letting people point to 
provenance statements from a resource URI. It can either be a property 
or extension to HTTP. Putting dc:provenance on the list will be more 
like a placeholder, reminding some of us of such a requirement, which I 
hope not only just comes from me:)
> 
> Does that make sense, or do you interpret the property differently?

I will put it onto the list for the moment and let the merging process 
deal with it.

cheers,

Jun
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> On 23 November 2010 17:47, JunZhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> I find dc:provenance is a quite interesting concept. What do you think?
>> Is this covered by OPM to your expertise?
>>
>> dc:provenance - a statement of any changes in ownership and custody of
>> the resource since its creation that are significant for its
>> authenticity, integrity, and interpretation.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Jun
>>
>> Simon Miles wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here are some terms from Dublin Core which may be considered.  They
>>> are those which I don't think are too specific to library collections
>>> and aren't directly covered in core OPM.
>>>
>>> dc:contributor   - agent A contributed to resource R
>>>   e.g. "Report dc:contributor Alice" means 'The report had material
>>> contributed to it by Alice.'
>>>
>>> dc:creator       - agent A created resource R
>>>   e.g. "Report dc:creator Alice" means 'The report was created
>>> (written) by Alice.'
>>>
>>> dc:hasPart       - resource R1 has a part resource R2
>>>   e.g. "Report dc:hasPart DataPlot" means 'The report contains the data plot.'
>>>
>>> dc:modified      - resource R was modified at time T
>>>   e.g. "Report dc:modified 12:00" means 'The report was modified
>>> (edited) at 12:00.'
>>>
>>> dc:replaces      - resource R1 replaces R2 (for whatever implied use)
>>>   e.g. "ReportEdition2 dc:replaces ReportEdition1" means 'Edition 1 of
>>> the report should now be used instead of edition 2 of the report.'
>>>
>>> Namespace used:
>>>   dc  = http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On 22 November 2010 21:43, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> As we discussed on the call from Friday last week, below is the list of
>>>> core concepts from OPM that we think should be in the list that goes
>>>> with the charter.
>>>>
>>>> I actually think there is quite a bit of overlap with the suggested
>>>> concepts from Jim McCusker. Also, from the mappings activity, we know
>>>> these overlap with most of the provenance ontologies.
>>>>
>>>> If no one objects, I would like to put all the concepts we are all
>>>> sending to the mailing list on the wiki and start to group them together.
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound good to everyone?
>>>>
>>>> Comments are appreciated especially if any concept is thought to be
>>>> unnecessary. I'm looking forward to seeing the proposed concepts from
>>>> everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully, we can reach a consensus soon.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suggest Concepts from OPM
>>>> We use opm: as a short cut for open provenance model.
>>>>
>>>> Graph:
>>>> - opm:OPMGraph
>>>> Definition: a provenance graph is defined to be a record of a past execution
>>>> Example: Bob's Website Factory  provides proof in the form of a
>>>> provenance graph that the contract was executed as agreed.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:Account
>>>> Definition: An account of the some past execution. Accounts offer
>>>> different levels of explanation for the same execution
>>>> Example: Bob's Website Factory and Customers Inc both provide two
>>>> different and conflicting sets of information (i.e. accounts) describing
>>>> the provenance of the production of the the same website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nodes:
>>>> - opm:Artifact
>>>> Definition: Immutable piece of state, which may have a physical
>>>> embodiment in a physical object, or a digital representation in a
>>>> computer system.
>>>> Example: BlogAgg would like to know the state of an image before and
>>>> after modification to see if it was modified appropriately
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - opm:Process
>>>> Definition: Action or series of actions performed on or depend upon
>>>> artifacts, and resulting in new artifacts.
>>>> Example:  Alice collects data from public sources and "natural
>>>> experiment" data. Alice then processes and interprets the results and
>>>> writes a report summarizing the conclusions. All these steps should be
>>>> captured.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:Agent (*1)
>>>> Definition: Contextual entity acting as a catalyst of a process,
>>>> enabling, facilitating, controlling, or affecting its execution.
>>>> Example: Alice starts and facilities the tool SPSS when doing data analysis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Edges:
>>>> - opm:Time (*2)
>>>> Example: BlogAgg wants to find the correct originator of the microblog
>>>> who first got the word out.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:Role
>>>> Definition: A role designates an artifact’s or agent’s function in a process
>>>> Example: Whether a data file was used as a training or test data set
>>>> when running machine learning algorithms.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:Used, opm:UsedStar
>>>> Definition: property to express that an artifact was used by a process.
>>>> Example: The panda image was used by BlogAgg to generate a thumbnail image.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:WasGeneratedBy, opm:WasGeneratedByStar,
>>>> Definition: property to express that an artifact was generated by a process.
>>>> Example: A thumbnail image was generated by Blog Agg using the panda image.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:WasControlledBy (*1)
>>>> Definition : property to express that a process was controlled an agent.
>>>> Example: SPSS was controlled by Alice.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:WasDerivedFrom, opm:WasDerivedFromStar,
>>>> Definition: property to express that an artifact was derived from
>>>> another artifact.
>>>> Example: The thumbnail image was derived from the panda image.
>>>>
>>>> - opm:WasTriggeredBy
>>>> Definition: property to express that a process was triggered by another
>>>> process.
>>>> Example: Report writing was triggered by the interpretation of results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Extensibility (*3):
>>>> - Some form of annotation, based on predicate-value pairs.
>>>> Example: The data is of type a customer sales records. The data has size
>>>> 100 megabytes.
>>>>
>>>> - Profile mechanisms, including common types, common annotations,
>>>>   and common graph templates
>>>> Example: The image has a creative commons attribution license. This
>>>> pattern represents the exchange of messages in the http protocol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (*) indicates terms that require refinement
>>>> (*1) Requires better, stricter guidelines for better inter-operabiltiy
>>>> (*2) To be better aligned on Time ontology
>>>> (*3) To be better specified to facilitate extensibility and to
>>>>     be better aligned with RDF-like annotations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Jun Zhao
>> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
>> Department of Zoology
>> University of Oxford
>> OX33 1SL
>> Email: jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>> Phone: +44 (0) 1865 281 094
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dr Jun Zhao
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
University of Oxford
OX33 1SL
Email: jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Phone: +44 (0) 1865 281 094

Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 10:40:51 UTC