- From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:08:32 -0400
- To: Satya Sahoo <sahoo.2@wright.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>, paulo <paulo@utep.edu>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinuvoc3ebNTT1RTKzkFA1c-EzxXWitgBxDeRbg8@mail.gmail.com>
I think that one thing that has been a recurring point in the discussions I've had with people around OPM is that opm:Artifact and opm:Process are supposed to correspond to much higher level concepts, specifically Continuent and Occurrent. If this is the case, then this needs to be formalized in the the schema and/or ontology. This could address some of the issues that have been raised in the past. Jim McCusker On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Satya Sahoo <sahoo.2@wright.edu> wrote: > Hi, > Thank you Paul and Luc for putting together this document for discussion. > > > I strongly agree with what Deborah has pointed out that the charter for the > working group should take into account as many existing provenance models as > possible and select the most relevant set of provenance terms towards a > standardization effort. > > > Luc said: - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn PML > concepts (ditto for other provenance languages). The mapping exercise, to my > knowledge, did not identify any. > > > Multiple issues were indeed identified during the mapping process, I am > specifically referring to Provenir ontology to OPM mapping where Luc agreed > with me that many of the concepts in Provenir represent broader notions of > provenance as compared to OPM (provenir:data vs. opm:artifact) . > > > Further, many fundamental provenance related, non-causal properties that > are modeled in the Provenir ontology are not present in OPM. E.g. > provenir:adjacent_to, provenir: transformation_of etc. > > > As part of the mapping report work, we also identified many provenance > terms that are clearly not present and given the current structure (as > defined in the OPM spec v1.1) would not be possible to represent. > > > There are many specific issues in OPM related to the inferencing, modeling > of properties etc., which I have repeatedly pointed out to Luc, Paul and > Paolo and given specific examples from the Provenir ontology. > > > Thanks. > > > Best, > Satya > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Date: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:55 am > Subject: Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter > To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu> > Cc: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" < > public-xg-prov@w3.org>, paulo <paulo@utep.edu> > > > Deborah, > > > > I think we should not forget the work that the incubator has done. > > I do not understand your statement "there is strong a bias when > > one > > starts with one > > and tries to shoehorn in the others." > > > > Let's be concrete, I suppose you are talking about PML, > > - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn > > PML concepts > > > > (ditto for other provenance languages). > > > > The mapping exercise, to my knowledge, did not identify > > any. Please > > correct me if > > I am wrong. > > > > This issue needs to be nailed down. I am happy to have a > > teleconference > > at some other > > mutually convenient time. But, we need to be able to justify our > > position. It's important > > to do it soon, because we can't write a final report properly > > with > > knowing what the conclusions > > are. > > > > Regarding the "fast" aspect, I think it is crucial too. > > Otherwise, > > somebody else > > will do it, de-facto way! > > > > Thanks, > > Luc > > > > > > > > On 10/15/2010 02:33 PM, Deborah McGuinness wrote: > > > On 10/15/2010 8:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > > >> Hi Deborah, > > >> > > >> Thanks for your response. This is exactly the sort of > > discussion we > > >> wanted to start. > > >> > > >> Luc and I wrote the proposal with the notion that we wanted a > > fast > > >> working group. > > > Fast working groups are good but I think we should focus on > > the > > > outcome rather than fast. it is not that fast precludes > > quality but > > > we should not focus on fast and have that preclude other > > options that > > > may be considered more representative of the broader > > provenance > > > community. > > >> With that in mind we thought it would be good to start with > > something > > >> already existing and not develop a whole new model. > > Additionally, we > > >> think that OPM is already a subset of what's out there > > already > > >> including PML. I think the DAML+OIL comparison is not so apt > > because > > >> OPM was already developed through a community process. > > > Actually I think the DAML+OIL model is quite apt. > > > DAML was developed by a large DARPA program over years with > > many > > > participants. > > > OIL also was developed by a consortium of people as well over > > time > > > (and actually there was a little bit of overlap in the authors > > but it > > > was relatively small). > > > Both grew up at about the same time. > > > While this is looking back, I would venture to say that if > > either went > > > in as a proposed standard without engaging the other > > community, either > > > would have had a VERY hard time getting through a standards > > body > > > DESPITE the fact that each had a significant community who had > > worked > > > on them. > > > What happened was that an adhoc US/UK working group self > > formed to > > > put something together that reflected what the authors thought > > > captured the essence of both. > > > > > > OPM was emerging in approximately the same timeframe as some > > of the > > > other contender provenance models. I agree of course > > that it came out > > > of a community but it did not include much participation from > > some > > > other communities. > > > > > > I think we need to look at what is out there now and determine > > what > > > the starting point should be and I do not think that OPM > > reflects the > > > starting point for some of the other communities. > > >> Furthermore, as we say in the draft, OPM is the starting point > > > My objection is to taking OPM as the starting point. > > > I think there is too strong a bias when one starts with one > > and tries > > > to shoehorn in the others. > > > > > > Paulo in particular had raised a number of issues when he was > > trying > > > to look more deeply at connections and embedded assumptions. > > > > > >> and would change over the coarse of the working group. > > >> > > >> Anyway, since you have a lot of experience on these working > > groups, I > > >> was wondering how you think we could design the charter to > > make > > >> production of a recommendation as fast as possible with the > > approach > > >> you have in mind? > > > I agree that having one starting point and refining may be > > considered > > > to be a fast approach but if one really thinks there may > > be > > > significant changes, then that may not be the case. I > > think though > > > that it could easily be interpreted as biasing the outcome > > towards > > > that starting point (and i would interpret it that way and > > would be > > > unhappy). > > > I think though we need to be open to other starting points so > > i think > > > we have to be open to other starting points. > > > > > > I see two routes that could be taken (and of course there are more). > > > 1 - write a charter now that takes starting points as input > > > 2 - follow the owl model and form an adhoc working group whose > > aim it > > > is to come up with a joint submission for the starting point. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Also, at least from my reading, it seems that you would > > endorse > > >> having a a working group work for a standard provenance > > model. Is > > >> that correct? > > > I support a working group to come up with a recommended > > provenance > > > model. > > > I do NOT support a working group that takes a single > > starting point > > > and aims to refine that one to come up with the recommendation. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> Paul > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Deborah McGuinness wrote: > > >>> Greetings, > > >>> Thanks for the work on the draft charter. > > >>> I am sending this quickly because i just read the beginning > > and have > > >>> a significant problem with the slant of the charter with the > > >>> position of > > >>> "The goal of this working group is to refine the Open > > Provenance Model" > > >>> and thought I should air this immediately upon seeing the draft. > > >>> > > >>> I strongly believe that the charter of a working group that > > would > > >>> end up with a provenance recommendation should start with > > the > > >>> contender models and take the best aspects from many of them > > RATHER > > >>> than starting with one model and refining it. I > > strongly oppose the > > >>> position that the charter should take any single model and > > work to > > >>> refine it. I would propose rather that this group > > would work like > > >>> the recent RIF working group or others where contender > > starting > > >>> points were submitted or like the OWL working group > > where two > > >>> contenders emerged - DAML and OIL and members from each side > > worked > > >>> to create a submission - DAML+OIL that truly took elements > > from both > > >>> languages and ended up with a joint proposal rather than > > this way > > >>> that just takes a single model as a starting point. > > >>> > > >>> There was some disappointment in the group when we chose to > > map the > > >>> other contender models to a single model, but most if not > > all > > >>> understood that decision from the perspective of time. > > I can not > > >>> say though that i (or i expect others who were disappointed) > > could > > >>> go along with this position in a proposed charter. > > >>> > > >>> I am sorry that this comes from someone who did not > > participate > > >>> nearly as much as I had hoped to. > > >>> I had an extremely bad year with my mother's multiple > > >>> hospitalizations and general overwhelming health problems > > and her > > >>> subsequent passing. I simply have had no choice > > but to put > > >>> everything other than family health at a much lower priority. > > >>> > > >>> Deborah > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 10/15/2010 7:58 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > > >>>> Hi All, > > >>>> > > >>>> Today on the call we are scheduled to talk about > > preparations for > > >>>> the final report. Luc and I feel that to write a compelling > > final > > >>>> report we should be clear about exactly what the report > > should > > >>>> recommend. There has been some consensus that a working > > group > > >>>> should be formed around the recommendations extracted from > > the > > >>>> scenarios ( > > >>>> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Recommendations_for_scenarios). > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> To that end, we have prepared a draft working group charter > > ( > > >>>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lavm/draft-charter.html ). We > > note > > >>>> this is only *our own* proposal and we see this as a > > starting point > > >>>> for discussion within the group. > > >>>> > > >>>> We look forward to any comments, questions, thoughts about > > this > > >>>> proposal. We hope this helps the group to continue to > > coalesce > > >>>> around a way forward. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Paul and Luc > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > -- Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 16:09:27 UTC