[provenance-challenge] Re: clarifying queries

[Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez]

Dear all,

During PC2, in the OntoGrid team we started to use annotations in order 
to describe the data exchanged by the different actors participating in 
a process in terms of a common vocabulary i.e. a domain ontology. Our 
goal was first to provide common, meaningful references to the values 
and second using such annotations in order to map the process 
documentation against a library of semantic overlays and use them to 
reason about the provenance of the process.

We did this by inserting the annotations under the <content> tag of the 
PASOA (which we used as underlying process documentation infrastructure) 
interaction p-assertions. At that time, my feeling was that a specific 
and explicit place to store the annotations in the process documentation 
would have been beneficial in order to support interoperability with 
other provenance systems. Perhaps this is something that we should do 
now in OPM and we should discuss about this during the workshop, indeed.

Best,
Jose

Joe Futrelle escribió:
> OPM is intended to be annotated, since it's scoped to just represent the causal relationships. My position is that rather than creeping the scope of OPM beyond causal relationships we need some agreement on how to attach annotations to OPM graphs in various representations. We sorta get that for free in RDF since RDF is already a graph structure where any node can be annotated with terms from any ontology; in XML and SQL we face more choices about how to do it, but fortunately I don't think any of them are very difficult or controversial.
> 
> --
> Joe Futrelle
> Cyberenvironments and Technologies
> National Center for Supercomputing Applications
> http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/futrelle
> 
> ----- "Paolo Missier" <pmissier at cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Paul,
>>> I think this is a problem that we should definitely take up, are
>> there 
>>> ways to commonly refer to values...? I mean right now it's hard to 
>>> determine what content is available in the value field of each 
>>> artifact, hence, your suggestion of using annotations. Does
>> something 
>>> like this need to be part of OPM.
>> I think the issue of representing (references to) values has come up 
>> quite clearly throughout the challenge, with proposals such as using
>> the 
>> value field to keep refs to values (URIs), and then annotating the OPM
>>
>> graph with references to services that are able to de-reference those
>> URIs.
>>
>> At the same time, I reckon adding annotations to causal graphs will 
>> become inevitable at some point -- and these have the advantage over 
>> actual values of being generally well-bounded in size, so I suggest we
>>
>> address this during the meeting so it is done in a principled way.
>>
>> Regards, -Paolo
> 
> 

-- 
Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez
jmgomez at fi.upm.es
#T +34 913363670
#F +34 913524819

Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informatica
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain