New ProvenanceDM working draft released

[Laurino, Omar]

Francois,


> Sect. 4.3, PROV-VOTable -- I'm *really* unhappy that a VO-DML-defined
>> data model defines a "custom" serialisation while the authors of the
>> "mapping" standard (that's supposed to define how such DMs are to be
>> represented in VOTable in general) work on something that looks entirely
>> different.  Everyone will eventually regret that.  So, please, *please*
>> don't have sect. 4.3; instead, help out the VO-DML mapping folks and
>> perhaps fill in any parameters left open in there in a version 1.1 of
>> ProvDM.
>>
> PROV-VOTable is nothing else than the transcription in VOTable of the
> tables and relationships of the ProvTAP schema.
>
> [...]
>
> PROV-VOTable format can allow input/output operations of a whole project
> provenance metadata in a database system.
>

By definition, at least from what I saw in the Provenance WD, this is what
the Mapping standard is supposed to cover. One difference with what you
wrote is that you don't need to define ProvTAP first, which is rather
another mapping target.

If ProvenanceDM has a valid VODML representation, VOTable representation of
its instances will be defined by the standard mapping mechanism, without
requiring an ad-hoc serialization definition.

To have two different potential serializations doesn't seem appropriate. So
my +1 goes to Markus' suggestion. I had an iteration with Kristin as I
hoped I could find some time to come up with standard VOTable
serializations according to the Mapping WD for Provenance instances, but
I've been working a lot on the STC and TimeSeries/Cube models and
serializations, and couldn't get to Provenance just yet.


> As   far as I understand this is not what is performed by the current
> effort on "VO-DML mapping into VOTable" which is more oriented on a (very
> complex) mapping of the model structure on a single table (or an unknown
> structure of tables ?)
>
>
I would argue that "very complex" in this context really means
"standardized", but I don't think a conversation on the subjective
perception of complexity is useful, my main point just being that the
Mapping document does (almost) exactly what you described above, i.e.:

PROV-VOTable is nothing else than the transcription in VOTable of the
> tables and relationships of the *vodml-xml model*.
> [...]
> PROV-VOTable format can allow input/output operations of a whole project
> provenance metadata in a database system.


Note my own edit in bold face.

It's the same goal as your PROV-VOTable, really, just standardized for all
data models rather than ad-hoc for a single model.

We are definitely going to discuss suggestions on the simplification of the
syntax for the Mapping WD, so if you have any such suggestions please send
them our way!

By currently focusing on important data models like STC, Cube, and
TimeSeries (and Provenance asap) we can finally see everything coming
together. With such implementation experience, actual serializations of
actual models to look at and compare we can then go back to discuss about
the syntax more pragmatically.

Best,

Omar.

-- 
Omar Laurino
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
100 Acorn Park Dr. R-377 MS-81
02140 Cambridge, MA
(617) 495-7227
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20171012/99092955/attachment-0001.html>