After looking at PROV-DM (Data Model), let’s try to implement that through case study. The case study was taken from W3C, about online newspaper that publishes an article with a chart about crime statistics based on data (GovData) provided by a government portal. The article includes a chart based on the data, with data values composed (aggregated) by geographical regions. Based on that sentence, we can derive 5 entities refer to:
•The article (exn:article),
•An Original data set (exg:dataset1),
•A list of regions (exc:regionList),
•Data aggregated by region (exc:composition1),
•A chart (exc:chart1)
In addition, we can also conclude that there are 3 activities represent:
•compilation of the chart from the data set (exc:compile1),
•composing the data by region (exc:compose1),
•generating the chart graphic (exc:illustrate1).
Based on 5 entities and 3 activities we have, we can describe that:
*The composition activity (exc:compose1) used the original data set, that it used the list of regions, and that the composed data was generated by this activity.
*The chart graphic creation activity (exc:illustrate1) used the composed data, and the chart was generated by this activity.
Thus, we have this overall picture of Provenance using PROV-DM
Next, let’s add agent in this scenario. Imagine a person named Derek who composite and create the chart. It means that Derek is an agent in the process of composition and creation of the chart. He did that because he works in an organization called Chart Generators Inc; therefore, he represents or acts on behalf of his company. In addition, We also derive a nonPROV information of Derek, explaining his profile. The complete graph is depicted below.