<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Alberto, Hi all, <br>
</p>
<p>I agree it is important to check with existing vocabularies.</p>
<p>at some point we will need to decide the scope of such an
approach, what level of information we need to convey in the
'semantics' field. <br>
</p>
<p>The Provenance W3C also has some terms dedicated on the links
from one 'document' ( called an entity) to its progenitors.</p>
<p>'wasDerivedFrom' is a relation between two entities, like
<isDerivedFrom> in DataCite. <br>
</p>
<p>Below my comments in text .</p>
<p>Cheers, Mireille<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 03/06/2016 à 22:28, Accomazzi,
Alberto a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Markus,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for resurrecting the topic. I have a few comments
below, but first as a meta-comment, should we consider
reusing, when possible, the relationTypes found in the
DataCite schema (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3.1.pdf">http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3.1.pdf</a>)?
This may be useful for two reasons: it makes our life easier
if and when the day comes to cross-walk between DataLink and
DataCite and, perhaps more importantly, it borrows semantics
generated by a cross-disciplinary community of practitioners
who had to come up with schemas for describing data, which is
really what we are trying to do here. I'll use some of them
below.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM,
Markus Demleitner <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
(1) I'd like to have a term for larger chunks of metadata
in separate<br>
files. I'd need that to link to observation logs, but I
could also<br>
<span class="">see logs a pipeline has written, or an
extensive provenance, or<br>
similar.<br>
<br>
</span>Proposed term(s): #metadata? #documentation? (as
a child of<br>
#auxiliary, I guess)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I dislike both terms you suggest because they sound so
general that they could be used for most anything. But if
we have to stay general because of the potentially
different types of resources we need to point to, how
about #Documents?</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes , I think it is very general.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
(2) I'd like to have a term for things like a rebinned
(higher S/N)<br>
<span class="">version of the dataset, or perhaps the data
in a different waveband on a<br>
multi-band instrument, or the same observation with a
different<br>
</span>instrument setup (as in V500/COMB vs. V1200 in
Califa), etc. Essentially:<br>
<span class="">Science data that was obtained "together
with" #this but that's not<br>
identical with #this.<br>
<br>
Proposed term(s): #science? (but that's a bit too
broad) #alternate?<br>
</span> (as a child of #this?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>maybe #isVariantFormOf or #isOriginalFormOf</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
all three examples proposed here point to different datasets: the
measured values have been obtained with specific settings <br>
or transformed from some original dataset, so to me these are
different 'entities' in the Provenance world.<br>
so rather <br>
<br>
case 1 & 3 : <isDerivedFrom> as a role and some term to
qualify how it is derived , as a sub-category : #cutout, #regrid<br>
case 2: I would propose <?siblingOf?> a relation like
"sibling", related to the same observation but offering different
physical properties . <br>
this helps to browse sister/brother datasets in the
observation-dataset genealogy.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
(3) I'd like to have a term for a different representation
of the same<br>
<span class="">dataset, e.g., a spectrum that was
originally a FITS image formatted as<br>
a FITS table, an SDM VOTable, or a CSV file (where of
course the SDM<br>
VOTable would be the #this). Essentially, the same data
as #this modulo<br>
the different expressivenesses of container formats.<br>
<br>
</span>Proposed term(s): #alt-format? (as a child of
#this?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>#isVariantFormOf or #isOriginalFormOf</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes, exactly same content but different representation. I agree.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
(4) I'd like to have a term for a previous version of a
dataset. I have<br>
that in califa, where I'd like to have *some* way to get
DR1 and DR2<br>
data, but I really don't want to clutter all-VO SSA or
obscore searches<br>
with these guys. So, I'm adding links to old files (where
they exist)<br>
in datalink results for new files. This isn't really
#progenitor, since<br>
the old files aren't in the provenance chain of the new
files (which are<br>
generated from yet other data files). It's... well, a
previous version,<br>
and hence I'd like to see<br>
<br>
Proposed term: #previous-version (as child of #auxiliary?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>we should be careful with the semantics that DataCite
assigns to these but #isPreviousVersionOf and
#isNewVersionOf might be appropriate here</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
agreed<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
That concludes the proposed concepts for this time; #fault
from the<br>
original proposals I've dropped. One other thing I'd
like:<br>
<br>
(5) #proc currently has "Server-side data processing
result" as its<br>
<span class="">explanation. What really is in such
datalink rows is, I submit,<br>
better described by "reference to a server-side
processing service"<br>
-- so, can we change that explanation?<br>
</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again , this processing-service is considered as an Activity in
Provenance DM . <br>
I think it is worth then to look also in the PROV-W3C ontology and
see if we can combine terms .<br>
<br>
My vague understanding is that we address the same problem with
different tools.<br>
Probably we need to clarify the coverage of each on the structure
side (DM) and on the semantic side (Vocabulary) .<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCwOJo72jC93D4QM3bh1huvD5mXJgNm+TZZzc_ePuhqD2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>No objection here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>-- Alberto</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">
<br>
Opinions? Proposals for sharper descriptions, better
terms? Any<br>
contributions are welcome.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Markus<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/2015-November/002495.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/2015-November/002495.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dr. Alberto Accomazzi<br>
Principal Investigator</div>
<div>NASA Astrophysics Data System - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ads.harvard.edu"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ads.harvard.edu">http://ads.harvard.edu</a></a><br>
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu">http://www.cfa.harvard.edu</a></a><br>
60 Garden St, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>