- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 08:29:26 +0000
- To: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Is there any reason that http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#wasAssociatedWith doesn't work for you? My recollection of PROV discussions is that involvement of human, software and other agents in an activity was intended to be captured using this (or qualifiedAssociation structures - cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#qualifiedAssociation). (IIRC, the "qualifiedAssociation" and similar structures -- http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms -- were introduced to avoid application-dependent (not a priori defined) sub-properties, which would break OWL-QL compatibility of PROV, with attendant reasoning performance challenges.) #g -- On 24/11/2017 22:15, Chris Mungall wrote: > Many ontologies such as those in the life-sciences have complex multi-step > release pipelines: for example, using an OWL reasoner to assert direct inferred > subClassOf axioms, adding owl annotations, verifying using SPARQL. It would be > useful to capture the full operation graph, so that the provenance of the > released ontology was explicit. > > PROV-O would provide the main framework for doing this. PROV-O predicates could > be used directly. Existing standards could be used to represent the software > agents involved. AFAICT there is a gap for an ontology for representing the > ontology processing operations (subclasses of prov:Activity). > > Is there an existing effort that could be piggy-backed on here? This could be > subsumed into an effort that seeks to represent for example transformations > between named graphs. Alternatively, the ontology build pipeline could be > conceived either as a software release process or a scientific workflow. For the > latter, there are a number of ontologies but it's not clear we'd get any benefit > using these rather than PROV-O directly. > > If there is no existing work being done here, I'll propose a draft of activity > classes and design patterns, and we can do a demo implementation in our ontology > release tool [ROBOT](https://github.com/ontodev/robot). But I'd rather not > duplicate any existing efforts.
Received on Saturday, 25 November 2017 08:29:53 UTC