<div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>This topic is really interesting. There are many ways to use PROV and NIF together, so the challenge is defining the best practices. For instance, the aggregation of annotations from different tools in NIF falls under the use cases of PROV, but its approach is completely different.<br><div><br></div><div>I can tell you about our experience in a European project using NIF with PROV-O for a specific scenario: sentiment analysis services. We focused on ease of use for service developers, so we used json-ld output and one of the priorities was making this json-ld as readable and usable as possible.</div><div><br></div><div>Simply put, each call to the NLP service generates and returns a prov:Activity. That call generates the necessary nif:Context (also a prov:Entity), and adds sentiment information too. The Sentiment Analysis is a prov:Activity itself.</div><div><br></div><div>You can read about it here: <a href="http://eurosentiment.readthedocs.org/en/master/format/servicesformat.html">http://eurosentiment.readthedocs.org/en/master/format/servicesformat.html</a><br></div><div>And a working example: <a href="http://demos.gsi.dit.upm.es/onyxemote/">http://demos.gsi.dit.upm.es/onyxemote/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Then again, our use case is special because contexts are tied the service call, we don't have to deal with versioning and aggregation.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Regards.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Rob H Warren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:warren@muninn-project.org" target="_blank">warren@muninn-project.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Philip,<br>
<br>
What would be the advantage of adding to NIF versus reusing the PROV ontology for this purpose? I have used this for some projects and have not seen a corner case yet.<br>
<br>
-rhw<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Dec 17, 2014, at 5:02 PM, <a href="mailto:nlp2rdf-request@lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de">nlp2rdf-request@lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de</a> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> as I mentioned to Sebastian briefly, we are working on adding a<br>
> provenance layer to NIF. And we would like to talk to you.<br>
><br>
> I sort of agreed with Sebastian that we could meet in Leipzig to discuss<br>
> this.<br>
><br>
> However, I think it is more efficient if we exchange material beforehand<br>
> and have a telco early January to discuss the material.<br>
><br>
> Sebastian: you mentioned that you have some proposals on how to<br>
> represent provenance of NIF annotations. Can you share that proposal<br>
> with us?<br>
><br>
> Peter: can you circulate our draft to the people in Leipzig (i.e.<br>
> Sebastian and Martin).<br>
><br>
> We can then start from there and organize a telco in January.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Philipp.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano<br>
> AG Semantic Computing<br>
</span>> Exzellenzcluster f?r Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)<br>
> Universit?t Bielefeld<br>
<span class="">><br>
> Tel: +49 521 106 12249<br>
> Fax: +49 521 106 6560<br>
> Mail: <a href="mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de">cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de</a><br>
><br>
> Office CITEC-2.307<br>
</span>> Universit?tsstr. 21-25<br>
> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW<br>
> Germany<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NLP2RDF mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NLP2RDF@lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de">NLP2RDF@lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/mailman/listinfo/nlp2rdf" target="_blank">http://lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/mailman/listinfo/nlp2rdf</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div>