W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire W3C PROV Vocabulary Usage Survey

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: zednis@rpi.edu

This questionnaire was open from 2012-01-11 to 2013-03-30.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Vocabulary Usage Information
  2. Contact Information
  3. PROV Encodings Supported
  4. Feature Coverage
  5. Provenance Exchange

1. Vocabulary Usage Information

Please provide the name and url of the dataset, website or other set of content that uses PROV to describe provenance. We also encourage you to fill out this form if your site uses an extension to PROV.

Details

Responder NameURLDescription
Victor Rodriguez Music Ontology to Media Value Chain Ontology and PROV-O Ontology Mapping http://oeg-dev.dia.fi.upm.es/mvco-prov/ Mapping between the Music Ontology, the Media Value Chain Ontology and the PROV-O. The Music Ontology describes general musical-related concepts, the Media Value Chain Ontology describes the Intellectual Property along the multimedia life-cycles and the PROV-O Ontology is the W3C standard for representing provenance information in the web. Together, these ontologies provide an homogeneous access to the chain of intermediate objects and actions that happen until a musical work is ready to be consumed (also known as the Music Workflow).
Luc Moreau PROV-DM: the PROV data model http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/ Provenance is information about entities, activities, and people involved in producing a piece of data or thing, which can be used to form assessments about its quality, reliability or trustworthiness. PROV-DM is the conceptual data model that forms a basis for the W3C provenance (PROV) family of specifications. PROV-DM distinguishes core structures, forming the essence of provenance information, from extended structures catering for more specific uses of provenance. PROV-DM is organized in six components, respectively dealing with: (1) entities and activities, and the time at which they were created, used, or ended; (2) derivations of entities from entities; (3) agents bearing responsibility for entities that were generated and activities that happened; (4) a notion of bundle, a mechanism to support provenance of provenance; (5) properties to link entities that refer to the same thing; and, (6) collections forming a logical structure for its members.

This document introduces the provenance concepts found in PROV and defines PROV-DM types and relations. The PROV data model is domain-agnostic, but is equipped with extensibility points allowing domain-specific information to be included.

Two further documents complete the specification of PROV-DM. First, a companion document specifies the set of constraints that provenance should follow. Second, a separate document describes a provenance notation for expressing instances of provenance for human consumption; this notation is used in examples in this document.

The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents.
Jens Lehmann DBpedia http://dbpedia.org
Rinke Hoekstra AERS-LD http://aers.data2semantics.org RDF representation of the Adverse Events repository of the FDA. Contains descriptions in PROV on how this data was constructed.
James McCusker TWC Healthdata http://healthdata.tw.rpi.edu This site provides the Department of Health and Human Services' HealthData.gov Platform (HDP) as part of the semantic web.
Ashley Smith University of Southampton Open Data http://data.southampton.ac.uk/ The University of Southampton makes all of its non-confidential data public as linked open data. As most staff are not familiar with this, a team from iSolutions process and convert this data from its original formats and collate it on the open data site. The conversion process is described in PROV.
Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez SIGNA http://geo.linkeddata.es/ SIGNA is a dataset associated with the Geographic Information System of the Spanish National Geographic Institute. This dataset collects points of interest (POIs) that are made available as RDF (Resource Description Framework) knowledge bases according to the Linked Data principles. The provenance of the whole process is tracked using PROV-O terms.
Daniel Garijo Dublin Core to PROV mapping http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/ Document providin a mapping between the Dublin Core Terms and the PROV-O ontology
Sarven Capadisli OECD Linked Data http://oecd.270a.info/ OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) data published using the Linked Data design principles.

2. Contact Information

Details

Responder NameEmail
Victor Rodriguez Daniel Garijo dgarijo@fi.upm.es
Luc Moreau Luc Moreau (prov-dm editor, on behalf of the Provenance Working Group) l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Jens Lehmann Jens Lehmann lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
Rinke Hoekstra Rinke Hoekstra rinke.hoekstra@vu.nl
James McCusker James McCusker mccusj@rpi.edu
Ashley Smith Ashley Smith ads04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez Daniel Garijo; Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez dgarijo@fi.upm.es; lmvilches@fi.upm.es
Daniel Garijo Daniel Garijo dgarijo@fi.upm.es
Sarven Capadisli Sarven Capadisli info@csarven.ca

3. PROV Encodings Supported

summary | by responder | by choice

Choose all that apply

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
PROV-O 7
PROV-N 1
PROV-XML 1

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder PROV Encodings SupportedPlease list any additional supported encodings (e.g. PROV-JSON, PROV-CSV, etc.) in the free-text area below
Victor Rodriguez
  • PROV-O
Luc Moreau
  • PROV-N
Jens Lehmann
  • PROV-O
Rinke Hoekstra
  • PROV-O
James McCusker
  • PROV-O
Ashley Smith
  • PROV-XML
Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez
  • PROV-O
Daniel Garijo
  • PROV-O
Sarven Capadisli
  • PROV-O

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
PROV-O
  • Victor Rodriguez
  • Jens Lehmann
  • Rinke Hoekstra
  • James McCusker
  • Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez
  • Daniel Garijo
  • Sarven Capadisli
PROV-N
  • Luc Moreau
PROV-XML
  • Ashley Smith

4. Feature Coverage

Indicate covered features by selecting one of the following below:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
123No opinion
Entity 6 3
Activity 7 2
Agent 7 2
Generation 7 2
Usage 7 2
Communication 4 5
Derivation 7 2
Attribution 6 3
Association 5 4
Delegation 3 6
Start 3 6
End 3 6
Invalidation 1 8
Revision 3 6
Quotation 1 8
PrimarySource 2 7
Person 1 8
Organization 1 8
SoftwareAgent 2 7
Plan 3 6
Influence 2 7
Bundle 1 8
Specialization 3 6
Alternate 3 6
Collection 1 8
EmptyCollection 1 8
Membership 1 8
Identifier 1 8
Attributes 1 8
Label 1 8
Location 2 7
Role 2 7
Type 1 8
Value 2 7

Averages:

Choices All responders:
Value
Entity2.00
Activity2.00
Agent2.00
Generation2.00
Usage2.00
Communication2.00
Derivation2.00
Attribution2.00
Association2.00
Delegation2.00
Start2.00
End2.00
Invalidation2.00
Revision2.00
Quotation2.00
PrimarySource2.00
Person2.00
Organization2.00
SoftwareAgent2.00
Plan2.00
Influence2.00
Bundle2.00
Specialization2.00
Alternate2.00
Collection2.00
EmptyCollection2.00
Membership2.00
Identifier2.00
Attributes2.00
Label2.00
Location 2.00
Role2.00
Type2.00
Value2.00

Details

Responder EntityActivityAgentGenerationUsageCommunicationDerivationAttributionAssociationDelegationStartEndInvalidationRevisionQuotationPrimarySourcePersonOrganizationSoftwareAgentPlanInfluenceBundleSpecializationAlternateCollectionEmptyCollectionMembershipIdentifierAttributesLabelLocation RoleTypeValueRationale
Victor Rodriguez 2 2 2 2 2 No opinion No opinion 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion The document http://oeg-dev.dia.fi.upm.es/mvco-prov/ Explains the rationale for each mapping in detail.

The mapping proposes some subclassing of PROV-O concepts (so it could be considered an extension). However, since no new classes are proposed, it has been considered a "PROV usage".
Luc Moreau 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PROV-DM defines all these PROV features and illustrates them using the PROV notation.
Jens Lehmann No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion
Rinke Hoekstra 2 2 2 2 2 No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion
James McCusker 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 No opinion 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion 2 determined by SPARQL query to healthdata.tw.rpi.edu/sparql
Ashley Smith No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion Our data is still under heavy development and features may be added or changed, sometimes by the hour.
Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion
Daniel Garijo No opinion 2 2 2 2 No opinion 2 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 No opinion No opinion The rationale for each term of the mapping can be seen here: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/
Sarven Capadisli 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 No opinion 2 2 2 No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion

5. Provenance Exchange

Is this vocabulary extension generated or consumed by an implementation, which one(s)?

Details

Responder Provenance Exchange
Victor Rodriguez
Luc Moreau All the examples in this document can be validated by ProvValidator (which is built in on the ProvToolbox used to parse them).

Jens Lehmann
Rinke Hoekstra Yes, it is generated by http://gitub.com/Data2Semantics/raw2ld
James McCusker csv2rdf4lod
Ashley Smith
Luis M. Vilches-Blázquez
Daniel Garijo
Sarven Capadisli

More details on responses

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.129 2015/07/01 16:13:23 kahan Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)