Describe relationship between inferred datasets

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is requirements from Andy Gibson, as quoted below.
{{{
I'm now at the point where I want to describe the relationship between:

1) A graph (dataset) of asserted triples
    - lets say a skos vocabulary

2) (optional) A graph containing some 'semantics'
    - like an OWL ontology, which may of course be a part of 1)
    - lets say I've extended SKOS with some of my own Classes / Properties
and I'm inferring broader/narrower relationships

3) A graph of inferred triples obtained by some reasoning process
    - I can combine 1) with several different 2)s and get very different 3)s

This would allow me to effectively add metadata to a graph of *inferred*
triples about the dataset from which they were derived, what semantics were
applied to generate them and which reasoner was used etc. Crucially, I
would be able to find out if a dataset has been through any sort of
reasoning process, including any reasoning process inherent in a SPARQL
endpoint.

Like I said, this seems to me to be in the scope of VoID, and thought it
was worth raising. Would be glad to hear your thoughts. If you think its
valid perhaps you could forward it to the others.

Best regards, 
Andrew
}}

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 13 Aug 2009 at 8:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Reasoning applied to a dataset/endpoint can already be described via 
void:Features. Used 
vocabularies/ontologies can be described via void:vocabulary. I believe 
together with void:subset his 
requirements are already covered.

We could add to the Guide some examples for describing the level of 
reasoning/inference applied to a graph.

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Propose to use Richard's explanation and do it in voiD 2.0

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 15 Oct 2009 at 11:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agreed

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 15 Oct 2009 at 1:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thinking more about this, I don't think that voiD can already fully answer the 
requirement.

We would need the ability to say: “Dataset C was generated by applying RDFS 
inference to datasets A and B.”

So we would need to extend voiD with terms for saying things about how one 
dataset was obtained from 
another dataset by applying inference or other transformation processes.

Actually I think that the Provenance Vocabulary would be a better place for 
this, because inference is a kind of 
data transformation process, and this is really about the provenance of C. At 
any rate, this kind of stuff is still 
an area of active research.

So my vote is for ruling this out of scope for voiD 2.

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2010 at 4:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Actually in prov-xg group, we have an explicit provenance user requirement 
similar to
this, see
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Documenting_Axiom_Formulatio
n

Agree with Richard. I will vote to close the issue, adding R's reason, and let 
Andy
know our decisions.

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 13 Jan 2010 at 2:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

close. out of the scope of void.

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 14 Jan 2010 at 3:53

• Changed state: Done