Re: ISSUE-22: Provenance, and the W3C PROV-XG

I very much agree with Jirka and want to add that there are two aspects of
provenance. One is what Maxime described. The other is a provenance
description of content items. E.g. something like
<span its-provref="someURI">some translated text</span>
in this example someURI points to a provenance description. ISSUE-22 is
about whether we should go that route. Here the work of the provenance
working group might be relevant for us.

Felix

2012/6/10 Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>

> On 8.6.2012 20:33, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:
>
> > Work session about Provenance will be quite short on Wednesday, so I
> want to highlight the fact that we could reuse some of the concepts and
> relations introduced in the W3C provenance working group, at least to
> define a RDFS vocabulary for ITS 2.0:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#relations-at-a-glance
> >
> > Something quite interesting about this group is how they managed to deal
> with both XML and RDF technologies:
> > They built the PROV Data Model
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120503/ and then propose :
> > PROV-XML, an XML schema for the PROV data model
> > PROV-O, the PROV ontology, an OWL-RL ontology allowing the mapping of
> PROV to RDF
> > (+ other specifications, there is a list in the primer document
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/)
> > This is part of what I'll speak about Tuesday morning.
>
> Hi,
>
> while it is perfectly OK to explore all possibilities we should keep in
> mind that if ITS 2.0 should be success it should be as simple as
> possible and should be finished in a timely manner.
>
> We should primary deal with XML representation as in ITS 1.0. Note that
> only reason we are talking about RDF is to fulfill the following part of
> charter (http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter):
>
> "For HTML5, the prose description of data categories will be normatively
> implemented as both a microdata and RDFa Lite 1.1. This approach is
> taken in order to avoid the development of a new metadata mechanism for
> HTML5 and to avoid adding markup attributes to the HTML5 language. The
> only exception MAY be adding the "translate" attribute to the HTML5
> language, see the HTML liaison description below."
>
> We already "violated" the charter as the best way to incorporate ITS
> markup into HTML5 is using its-* attributes. In past months research
> turned out that both microdata and RDFa are inappropriate for
> associating metadata with existing document content, they are
> appropriate for inline capture of *self standing* metadata which are not
> connected to the original fragments of document.
>
> Although I think that given that it doesn't make much sense to work on
> MD and RDFa anymore, WG decided to provide such mapping anyway
> (https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18).
> In this light I would suggest to use all the RDF, OWL and another
> SemanticWeb technologies as an additional optional layer on the base ITS
> 2.0 which should be made in a manner similar to ITS 1.0.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
>                                        Jirka
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Professional XML consulting and training services
>  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow