Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 12 Jun 2008 at 1:13
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
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 13 Jun 2008 at 10:51
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
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
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
done
Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com
on 12 Jan 2009 at 10:53
close
Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com
on 12 Jan 2009 at 10:54
Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com
on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:14
Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com
on 21 May 2009 at 9:42
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 22 May 2009 at 7:16
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:08
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:11
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:13
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
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
Original comment by richard....@gmail.com
on 2 Sep 2013 at 12:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Michael.Hausenblas
on 12 Jun 2008 at 1:13