ISSUE-117: General Comments On Ontology Document

general-comments-on-formal-model-document

General Comments On Ontology Document

State:
CLOSED
Product:
PROV-O HTML
Raised by:
Luc Moreau
Opened on:
2011-10-06
Description:
Comments about the document
---------------------------

Assuming the ontology issues described above are solved, then there is the question
of how the specification document should present the ontology.

My *key* concern is that the document's motivation is *not aligned*
with the charter.

The ontology document says:

- This ontology specification provides the foundation for
implementation of provenance applications
- The PROV ontology classes and properties are defined such that they
can be specialized for modeling application-specific provenance
information
- The PROV ontology is specialized to create domain-specific
provenance ontologies that model the provenance information specific
to different applications.
- The PROV ontology consists of a set of classes, properties, and
restrictions that can be used to represent provenance information.
- The PROV Ontology is conceived as a reference ontology that can be
extended by various domain-specific applications to model the
required set of provenance terms

But the charter says:
- The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance
could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be
realistic today.
- A pragmatic approach is to consider a core provenance language with
an extension mechanisms that allow any provenance model to be
translated into such a lingua franca and exchanged between systems.
- Heterogeneous systems can then export their provenance into such a
core language, and applications that need to make sense of
provenance in heterogeneous systems can then import it and reason
over it.

So, it seems that there is a mismatch in motivation. The
standardization effort is about *exchanging provenance information*
and not on how to represent it internally into systems.

Section "4. Specializing Provenance Ontology for Domain-specific
Provenance Applications" provides examples of how to specializa the
ontology for specific applications. Are we saying this is normative?
Is it the only way do it? My view is that this is purely illustrative
and non normative. The document should make this clear.

I would even suggest that it needs to be presented differently. The
focus should not be on how to specialize the ontology. Instead, it
should demonstrate how applications, with specialized ontologies, can
still interoperate.

I thought that coming up with a series of normative MUST/SHOULD
requirements would have been useful to establish interoperability
criteria. What should we see in the RDF serialization to ensure
serializability?
e.g. prov:Agent/Entity/ProcessExecution must be explicitly visible ...
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-04-16)
  2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-04-16)
  3. Re: [provo] Issues still open, raised and pending against the provo html (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-03-12)
  4. [provo] Issues still open, raised and pending against the provo html (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2012-03-12)
  5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-05)
  6. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es on 2012-03-05)
  7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-01-20)
  8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-01-12)
  9. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-21)
  10. PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-11-21)
  11. Updates on issues raised for PROV-O (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2011-11-15)
  12. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es on 2011-10-06)
  13. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-10-06)
  14. Re: PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-10-06)
  15. comments on ontology and on ontology document (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-10-06)
  16. PROV-ISSUE-117 (general-comments-on-formal-model-document): General Comments On Ontology Document [Formal Model] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-10-06)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 117.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:21 vivien Exp $