- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:19:24 +0100
- To: pmissier@acm.org
- Cc: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=0iX3wU-tE26Fxz=SKPnmOYM2fQZ_vZ4nO+xt4@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, I agree with you in the "adjacent_to" property. I was more concerned about the "located_in" property, which I associated to explicit coordinates of the sensor or buoy at a certain time, but as Paul explained it might be better a recommendation than a property of the core. Best, Daniel 2010/11/24 Paolo Missier <pmissier@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> > >> 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 17:20:05 UTC