Difference between revisions of "ProvNamespaceManagement"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 31: Line 31:
 
* prov.owl
 
* prov.owl
  
The single file would contain sections delimitated by comments e.g.
+
The single file would contain concatenated sections delimitated by comments e.g.
  
 
  ##This section of the prov.owl contains terms from prov-aq
 
  ##This section of the prov.owl contains terms from prov-aq
Line 38: Line 38:
  
 
  <> prov:wasDerivedFrom http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl.  
 
  <> prov:wasDerivedFrom http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl.  
 +
 +
Stian: Should not the above go to the OWL file from the REC?
 +
  
 
''Upsides''
 
''Upsides''
Line 45: Line 48:
 
* Creates a monolithic file
 
* Creates a monolithic file
 
* Some provenance is lost
 
* Some provenance is lost
 +
* Confusing to know what is part of recommendation or not
 +
* Confusing which is the official recommendation, prov.owl or ProvenanceOntology.owl - gut instinct would be that the official is what you get from resolving namespace!
  
 
===Solution 2: Use owl:import===
 
===Solution 2: Use owl:import===
Line 51: Line 56:
 
  <> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl .
 
  <> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl .
 
  <> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/98870b4c796c/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl .
 
  <> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/98870b4c796c/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl .
 +
 +
Stian: Should not the above URLs point to the OWLs of the REC and Note's folders?
 +
  
 
''Upsides''
 
''Upsides''
Line 58: Line 66:
 
* No simple dereferencability
 
* No simple dereferencability
 
* Requires owl reasoning
 
* Requires owl reasoning
 +
 +
 +
=== Solution 2.1 Use owl:import, but merge PROV-O ===
 +
 +
This hybrid solution is a single OWL file with the content of ProvenanceOntology.owl (PROV-O) - but with the additional owl:imports for the modules. It will include provenance to the OWL of the official REC that it is derived from.
 +
 +
''Upsides''
 +
* Distinguishes 'official' bit (PROV-O REC) from additional modules (notes)
 +
* Does not require OWL reasoning for official terms
 +
 +
''Downsides''
 +
* Requires OWL reasoning for notes.

Revision as of 11:17, 10 July 2012

Intro

This page describes the management (and issues around) of the prov namespace.

The namespace is:

Some requirements:

  • the namespace should dereference to appropriate serialization based on accept headers. Some examples
  • In the html page returned, we should provide a glossary of terms with appropriate links to the various specifications.
  • The html should be embedded with RDFa

Current Issues

Which owl should be returned when dereferencing

Solution 1: Merge all owl files into one namespace owl

Here the idea is that each note would maintain a separate owl file. For example sake let's use the following names:

  • ProvenanceOntology.owl - the file containing owl definitions of terms in prov-o
  • prov-aq.owl - the file containing owl definitions of terms in the paq
  • prov-dict.owl - the file containing the owl definitions of terms in prov dictionaries

The proposal would be that this would be merged into a single file

  • prov.owl

The single file would contain concatenated sections delimitated by comments e.g.

##This section of the prov.owl contains terms from prov-aq

In addition we would add provenance information identifying where the information was retrieved from

<> prov:wasDerivedFrom http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl. 

Stian: Should not the above go to the OWL file from the REC?


Upsides

  • Machine readable information for all terms in the namespace can be easily retrieved

Downsides

  • Creates a monolithic file
  • Some provenance is lost
  • Confusing to know what is part of recommendation or not
  • Confusing which is the official recommendation, prov.owl or ProvenanceOntology.owl - gut instinct would be that the official is what you get from resolving namespace!

Solution 2: Use owl:import

Here we define a single owl file that imports the necessary information from all the separate owl files. Something like:

<> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/42195124779a/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl .
<> owl:imports http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/98870b4c796c/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl .

Stian: Should not the above URLs point to the OWLs of the REC and Note's folders?


Upsides

  • Creates a simple file with clear distinction between which terms are defined by which notes

Downsides

  • No simple dereferencability
  • Requires owl reasoning


Solution 2.1 Use owl:import, but merge PROV-O

This hybrid solution is a single OWL file with the content of ProvenanceOntology.owl (PROV-O) - but with the additional owl:imports for the modules. It will include provenance to the OWL of the official REC that it is derived from.

Upsides

  • Distinguishes 'official' bit (PROV-O REC) from additional modules (notes)
  • Does not require OWL reasoning for official terms

Downsides

  • Requires OWL reasoning for notes.