- From: Paolo Missier <pmissier@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:09:20 +0000
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
- CC: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4CED1C90.30507@acm.org>
Daniel, I expressed my POV on spatial relations in the discussion page: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Talk:Proposal_for_a_Working_Group_on_Provenance point (p2) would you not agree that space and time are different in the way they should be considered as provenance-related properties? -Paolo On 24/11/2010 12:56, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Paul, > I am sorry, I think i didn't express myself correctly. I meant that in the last calls i felt like the definitions for provenance > about provenance (provenance metadata) where out of the scope the WG, which would be more centered in finding the core concepts > for provenance in general. > > Also, there exist some ontologies for modelling time... should we leave the time parameters out of the core and add them in the > best practice guide too? > Best, > Daniel > > 2010/11/24 Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com <mailto:pgroth@gmail.com>> > > Hi Daniel, > > Your correct, the mappings can be a guide. This actually doesn't have to be a huge task. Just put all the concepts that are > close to one another together on the wiki. I would do it but won't be able to today. > > I think defining the core concepts for provenance on the web is exactly what the WG should be doing. Otherwise, I don't know > what the WG should do? > > Finally, there are many other widely used ontologies that define spatial relationships. One can say that "where" is an > important concept in provenance but I would suggest that defining "where" and relationships between where is outside the scope > of the WG. It may be something that should be put in the best practice guide. i.e. use ontology x for spatial descriptions. > > cheers, > Paul > > > Daniel Garijo wrote: > > Hi Paul, Paulo, all. > For the grouping of concepts we could also use the mappings between > vocabularies (many similar concepts have been mapped to opm entities there). > > Paulo, I have read over the proposed concepts posted in the wiki, but I > don't see how any of those can be grouped as provenance metadata. I > agree that it is very important to have a minimum core of concepts for > this task because it relevant for some of the scenarios, but in the last > telecons i got the feeling that was out of the scope of the WG. The DC > Metadata provenance task group [1] (Led By Kai Eckert and Michael > Panzer) is focused on this task. > > Finally, why the spatial parameters should be excluded from the core? In > the end is metadata about where the artifact/experiment/document has > been produced... > > Best, > Daniel >
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 14:09:53 UTC