update template to say model wasAttributedTo project

[zednis]

references USGCRP/gcis-ontology/issues/96

[zednis]

I also changed the use of gcis:ModelRun as a predicate to prov:wasUsedBy which is the PROV-O recommended inverse property to prov:used. This is the correct PROV relationship if gcis:ModelRun is used as an activity and not as the output entity. I did not see any instances of gcis:ModelRun or gcis:ModelRunOutput in the API or triplestore so I was not able to confirm that our use in the instance data aligns the semantics agreed upon in USGCRP/gcis-ontology/issues/17

[zednis]

Before we close this pull request - I am not sure if <<%= uri($model_run) %>> represents the model run output or the model run activity.

If it represents the output of the run (an entity) we will need to make an additional change to the pull request, replacing prov:wasUsedBy with prov:hadDerivation (saying the model run output was derived from the model).

[zednis]

Based on the discussion in USGCRP/gcis-ontology/issues/17 I am going to change the template pull request to use prov:hadDerivation instead of prov:wasUsedBy since it is now clear that <<%= uri($model_run) %>> is intended to represent the output dataset from a model run.

[justgo129]

Assuming this is fine with @rewolfe, I'm fine to merge and subsequently close USGCRP/gcis-ontology#17.

[rewolfe]

+1

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:43 PM, justgo129 notifications@github.com wrote:

Assuming this is fine with @rewolfe https://github.com/rewolfe, I'm
fine to merge and subsequently close USGCRP/gcis-ontology#17
USGCRP/gcis-ontology#17.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#235 (comment).

Robert Wolfe, NASA GSFC @ USGCRP, o: 202-419-3470, m: 301-257-6966

[justgo129]

@bduggan please feel free to merge at your convenience. We'll then close USGCRP/gcis-ontology#17.

[zednis]

before we merge - we could update the proposed change to use gcis:relatedProject instead of prov:wasAttributedTo. gcis:relatedProject is a subproperty of prov:wasAttributedTo so the desired provenance relationship will still hold and would be available to queries if inference is supported.

[justgo129]

@zednis is that a recommendation or simply another option?

[zednis]

@justgo129 non-strong recommendation. Once we get inference working and are able to infer the prov:wasAttributedTo relationship from the subproperty it will be a stronger recommendation.

[justgo129]

Sounds good. Let's go with the non-strong recommendation then. @zednis please feel free to update the necessary files accordingly. Once that is done, please inform @bduggan so that he can merge.