search

cygri / void

An RDF schema and associated documentation for expressing metadata about RDF datasets
http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
15 stars 1 forks source link

provenance information #3

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Raised by: [http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Olaf_Hartig Olaf Hartig]

Content:
A description of an RDF dataset should contain information about the 
provenance of the data in the dataset.

See also:
* http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?
MetaLOD#Provenance_information

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Michael.Hausenblas on 12 Jun 2008 at 1:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 12 Jun 2008 at 1:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'd suggest  we try to gather what kind of provenance information we could 
provide,
what the use cases for it are, then brainstorm how to model it, and decide 
whether it
is part of void, or could perhaps be its own vocabulary. 

We could leave this issue to the second iteration, but it might be something 
that is
better for authors to be doing in a uniform way from the start (ie, in the 
absence of
something concrete, they may tread their own cowpaths, making it more difficult 
to do
something afterwards).

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 12 Jun 2008 at 6:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 13 Jun 2008 at 10:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Olaf gave for concrete example questions:

1. Who published the dataset?
2. How has the dataset been created (e.g. mined from a text, extracted from a 
relational DB)?
3. What was the original source(s)?
4. Who publishes/provides the original source(s)?

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 27 Jun 2008 at 9:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
We should have a look at RDF/XML Source Declaration [1]. Though seems limited 
to 
RDF/XML this might help us and we could partially (re)use this.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/rdfsource/

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Aug 2008 at 7:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Related provenance vocabularies for review (originated from Olaf's email 09 
July).
+++++++++++++++

* FOAF (http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/)
  - foaf:maker (range: foaf:Agent, domain: owl:Thing)
   --> suitable to identify a creator

* Dublin Core Metadata Terms (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/)
  - dcterms:creator (range: dcterms:Agent)
   --> suitable to identify a creator
  - dcterms:publisher (range: dcterms:Agent)
   --> suitable to identify a provider/publisher
  - dcterms:contributor (range: dcterms:Agent)
   --> suitable to identify the creator of an original RDF source
  - dcterms:source
   --> suitable to identify the creator of an original source

* Semantic Web Publishing Vocabulary (http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/swp-2/)
  - swp:assertedBy (domain: rdfg:Graph, range: swp:Warrant) + swp:authority 
(domain: swp:Warrant, range: swp:Authority)
   --> suitable to identify a creator

* Provenance part of PML2 ontology (proof markup language) - 
http://inferenceweb.stanford.edu/2006/06/pml-provenance.owl
  - pmlp:hasOwner (range: pmlp:Agent)
  - pmlp:hasCreationDateTime (range: xsd:dateTime)
  - pmlp:hasModificationDateTime (range: xsd:dateTime)
  - pmlp:hasAuthorList (range: pmlp:AgentList)
  - pmlp:hasVersion (range: xsd:string)
  - pmlp:hasPublisher (domain: pmlp:Document, range: pmlp:Agent)

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 21 Aug 2008 at 3:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
done

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 12 Jan 2009 at 10:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
close

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 12 Jan 2009 at 10:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 21 May 2009 at 9:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 22 May 2009 at 7:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I have been working on voidp, a provenance extension to void. It's here: 
http://www.enakting.org/provenance/voidp/20110210.html . It is designed to be 
lightweight. It'll be good if these can be incorporated into void.

Original comment by tope.omi...@googlemail.com on 22 Feb 2011 at 12:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
With W3C's PROV Ontology getting closer to Recommendation, it's probably one of 
the first places we should look at. As far as I understand, typically, PROV is 
not used directly but through specializations that are then mapped to PROV. The 
specializations define domain-specific entities, roles, activities, and so on.

The PROV Working Group has a Dublin Core to PROV mapping, so this might already 
solve part of the problem.

And VoID could define further activities and roles specific to RDF publishing, 
perhaps inspired by voidp, and map those to PROV.

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2012 at 2:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 2 Sep 2013 at 12:06