Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

The VPD data catalog makes manufacturing sensor data FAIR by linking each dataset to the exact workflow step and observation that generated it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:26 UTC pith:NXK73N2P

load-bearing objection A solid ontology-alignment design for process-aware manufacturing catalogs that deserves referee time, but the state-semantics gap and lack of evaluation need to be fixed before the FAIR claim rests. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27840 v1 pith:NXK73N2P submitted 2026-07-30 cs.AI

Virtual Process Dossier: A Process-Aware Data Catalogue

Lukas Kubelka , Alexander Bott , Frank D\"ohner , Saksham Kiroriwal , Georg Zeeb , Julia Butte , Julius Pfrommer , J\"urgen Beyerer
show 1 more author
Tobias K\"afer
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords data catalogworkflow provenanceFAIR dataknowledge graphontology alignmentsensor observationIndustry 4.0manufacturing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes the Virtual Process Dossier (VPD), a knowledge-graph data catalog that captures both the planned structure of a manufacturing workflow and the actual events of its execution. Its central claim is that by aligning four existing ontologies—DCAT for datasets, PROV for provenance, SSN/SOSA for sensor observations, and WiLD for workflow structure—each sensor dataset can be traced to the specific activity instance within a specific workflow run that generated it. This makes the data FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) in a way that generic catalogs cannot, and it directly answers questions like 'during which step was this recording captured?' The paper also provides a framework for automatically instantiating the knowledge graph during production, and a user interface for browsing and updating it. If right, it gives data scientists in multi-stage manufacturing a reliable way to select data by production step, machine, and parameter configuration.

Core claim

The core discovery is an ontology alignment that makes workflow provenance and sensor observation equivalent for the purpose of cataloguing datasets. VPD-O defines vpd:SensorActivityInstance as a subclass of both wild:ActivityInstance and sosa:Observation, so that an executed sensor activity is simultaneously a step in the workflow and an observation. Through standard subclass relations, this instance is also a prov:Activity, and a dcat:Dataset can be linked to it via prov:wasGeneratedBy. The same pattern is applied to machines: vpd:Machine is both a prov:Agent (responsible for activities) and a sosa:FeatureOfInterest (the thing sensors observe), and parameterizations are prov:Plans attached

What carries the argument

The VPD-O ontology, a lightweight alignment layer that reuses WiLD's tree-based workflow model, PROV's activity and agent vocabulary, SSN/SOSA's observation structure, and DCAT's catalog and distribution classes. Its central element is the class vpd:SensorActivityInstance, defined as a wild:ActivityInstance and a sosa:Observation, which ties a discrete workflow step to a sensor reading and, through PROV, to the dataset that stores it. The ontology introduces only a few new classes—SensorActivity, MachineActivity, Machine, Parameterization, Product, Material—whose job is purely to align the four reused vocabularies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an activity instance can be classified as both a WiLD activity instance (which only denotes a completed activity once its state is wild:done) and a SOSA observation at insertion time, without violating the semantics of either ontology.

What would settle it

Run the paper's SPARQL/UPDATE template for a sensor activity onto a triple store with the WiLD and SSN/SOSA ontologies loaded, then query whether the inserted activity instance is entailed to be a prov:Activity; if it is not (because the instance's state is missing or not set to wild:done) or if it violates SOSA's observation constraints, the VPD alignment is inconsistent and the provenance graph it produces is not sound.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every sensor dataset in a VPD catalog carries an explicit link to the workflow instance and atomic activity instance that produced it, so 'which step was this data from?' becomes a single SPARQL query.
  • Because vpd:SensorActivityInstance is also a sosa:Observation, dataset provenance inherits the sensor, observed property, and feature of interest without extra modeling.
  • The WiLD/PROV bridge means prospective provenance (the planned workflow tree) and retrospective provenance (the actual run) are connected, so queries can compare what was supposed to happen with what happened.
  • Distribution metadata via DCAT gives each dataset a persistent, machine-readable location and download URL, satisfying the Findable and Accessible FAIR requirements.
  • The framework can be embedded in the manufacturing control system with a two-phase handshake that distributes IRIs before a run and inserts provenance via SPARQL/UPDATE during the run.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same alignment recipe—making an activity instance also an observation and an agent also a feature of interest—could generalize to other workflow-driven domains, such as scientific experiments or logistics, where sensor data needs to be tied to process steps.
  • One testable extension is to run a VPD instance on a real or simulated multi-stage production line and measure whether downstream AI models trained on provenance-filtered data outperform those trained on unfiltered data.
  • The paper leaves open how the catalog handles workflow evolution; a natural next step is adding explicit WiLD versioning or a new class for evolution provenance at the workflow-model level.
  • The catalog's value depends on every actor in the production environment actually possessing its assigned IRI; a field deployment could reveal how much manual setup this demands for heterogeneous legacy machinery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Virtual Process Dossier (VPD), a knowledge-graph-based data catalogue for multi-stage manufacturing environments. The VPD ontology aligns DCAT, PROV, SSN/SOSA, and WiLD to link sensor datasets to specific workflow instances and activity instances, thereby capturing both prospective and retrospective workflow provenance. The paper also contributes a framework for instantiating the ontology in production environments and a user interface for browsing and updating the resulting knowledge graph. The approach is illustrated with a running example of a two-step manufacturing process for fiber-reinforced plastic parts. The authors claim that VPD makes manufacturing sensor data FAIR by providing findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable metadata with explicit provenance.

Significance. If the semantic issues are resolved, this is a useful contribution to industrial data management and provenance research. The reuse of published and standardized ontologies (DCAT, PROV, SSN/SOSA, WiLD) is good practice, and the open-source availability of the ontology and UI is commendable. The paper addresses a real gap: generic data catalogues do not capture stage-specific workflow provenance, which is essential for downstream AI-based optimization. The explicit alignment between sensor observations and workflow activities is a promising idea. However, the paper's central provenance claim is currently weakened by an underspecified and partly inconsistent instantiation semantics, and the FAIR claim lacks direct substantiation. The strengths of the design and its potential applicability justify further work, but the manuscript needs revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1, footnote 5; §5.2.1] The central provenance chain is not semantically grounded as written. The paper's footnote 5 states that a wild:ActivityInstance represents a prov:Activity only when its state is wild:done. However, the sensor-activity example in §4.2.1 and the SPARQL/Update template in §5.2.1 instantiate vpd:SensorActivityInstance without asserting wild:state wild:done. Under WiLD's semantics, the instance is therefore not a prov:Activity, so the triple `<D> prov:wasGeneratedBy <AI_a>` is not a valid PROV generation from an activity. This is load-bearing because the paper's main contribution is precisely linking datasets to the specific activity instance that generated them. The fix is straightforward—add wild:state wild:done to the template and examples—but without it the example graph is inconsistent with the referenced ontologies.
  2. [§4.2.1, Fig. 3] The class hierarchy itself needs clarification. vpd:SensorActivityInstance is declared a subclass of both wild:ActivityInstance and sosa:Observation. Since sosa:Observation is a subclass of prov:Activity (via the SSN/SOSA PROV alignment), any instance of vpd:SensorActivityInstance is unconditionally a prov:Activity. Yet WiLD's state semantics, as acknowledged in footnote 5, make wild:ActivityInstance a prov:Activity only when wild:state wild:done. These two constraints are in tension. The authors should either restrict the subclass relationship (e.g., make vpd:SensorActivityInstance a subclass of wild:ActivityInstance only when done, or model the state explicitly as a necessary condition) or clarify that WiLD's 'only when' is not a formal necessary condition for the class. As it stands, the alignment is under-specified and could allow inconsistent entailments.
  3. [§1, §4.1] The paper repeatedly claims that VPD 'provides datasets in a FAIR manner,' but no direct evidence is presented. The ontology engineering section mentions the FOOPS! tool, yet no results are reported, and no systematic mapping of the design to the FAIR principles is given. Given that FAIRness is a central advertised contribution, the authors should either include a concrete FAIR assessment (FOOPS! output, or a principle-by-principle mapping with justifications) or temper the claim to 'supports FAIR metadata' rather than asserting full compliance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1, line 4 of the example] The sensor activity instance is typed as wild:SensorActivityInstance, but the ontology introduces vpd:SensorActivityInstance as the dedicated class. This is presumably a typo and should be corrected to vpd:SensorActivityInstance; otherwise the example does not demonstrate the VPD ontology.
  2. [§4.2.2, SHACL example] The SHACL snippet uses the prefix fofa: (e.g., fofa:pressForce) without declaring it. This makes the example not machine-readable and unclear. Either declare the prefix or use a fully specified IRI.
  3. [Throughout] The Turtle snippets are typeset with spaces between letters (e.g., 'wild : W o r k f l o w M o d e l'), which is unusual and reduces readability. Using a standard monospaced code style would make the examples easier to parse.
  4. [§5.2.1] The SPARQL/Update template inserts the dataset and provenance in a single INSERT DATA block. If the sensor reading is collected before the activity is completed, the state should be set to wild:running initially and updated to wild:done later. The framework should specify when the state transition occurs, especially since the paper emphasizes an event-driven approach.
  5. [§8] The conclusion claims the approach scales to 'manufacturing workflows of arbitrary complexity', but no complexity analysis or experimental validation is provided. A short discussion of limitations or future evaluation would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: VPD-O is a constructive ontology-alignment and framework contribution; its provenance links are inserted via SPARQL templates, not derived from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a constructive modeling and engineering contribution: an ontology (VPD-O) aligning DCAT, PROV, SSN/SOSA, and WiLD, plus an instantiation framework and UI. The provenance link `<D> prov:wasGeneratedBy <A_Ia>` is asserted directly in the framework's SPARQL/Update template (§5.2.1), rather than being derived from a fitted parameter, a renamed empirical pattern, or a definitional equivalence, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional circularity. The only self-citations are to WiLD [20] and ASM4LD [19] by co-author Käfer; these are externally published works with operational/executable semantics, and the VPD contribution—alignment classes such as vpd:SensorActivityInstance, vpd:MachineActivity, vpd:Parameterization, SHACL-based parameter shapes, and the UI—does not reduce to WiLD by construction. Footnote 5 in §4.2.1 does admit that wild:ActivityInstance represents a prov:Activity only when its state is wild:done, and the §5.2.1 template does not set that state; this is a genuine semantic-coherence/correctness bug worth flagging, but it is not circularity in the derivation chain. The statement that sosa:Observation is a subclass of prov:Activity comes from an external W3C alignment module and is used as an axiom, not as the paper's own predicted output. No load-bearing step in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction or to a self-citation chain, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted; the burden lies in the semantic alignment and the unverified integration and FAIRness assumptions.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Competency questions from stakeholder workshops (§4.1) adequately represent the information needs of downstream AI tasks in the target manufacturing scenario.
    The ontology's structure is driven by these questions; if they are incomplete, the ontology mis-models the domain.
  • domain assumption Manufacturing system controllers can be integrated to execute the two-phase 'handshake' and issue SPARQL/Update inserts during production runs (§5.1, §5.2).
    This is load-bearing for the framework; no real controller integration or performance data is presented.
  • domain assumption The semantics of WiLD, SOSA, and PROV remain consistent under the VPD-O subclass alignments (e.g., SensorActivityInstance as both ActivityInstance and Observation).
    The paper asserts this alignment without formal or logical validation; footnote 5 in §4.2.1 hints at a state-semantics conflict.
  • domain assumption FAIRness is achieved by reusing standard ontologies and checked with FOOPS! (§4.1), but no FOOPS! result is reported.
    The claimed FAIRness is an evaluation outcome, not a demonstrated result.
invented entities (1)
  • VPD-O alignment classes (vpd:SensorActivity, vpd:SensorActivityInstance, vpd:MachineActivity, vpd:Machine, vpd:Parameterization, vpd:ParameterDescription, vpd:Product, vpd:Material) no independent evidence
    purpose: Glue classes to align WiLD workflows, SOSA observations, PROV agents, and DCAT datasets for manufacturing provenance.
    These are new vocabulary terms introduced in the paper; they have no falsifiable predictions outside the ontology itself, so no independent evidence exists.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 11853 in / 12720 out tokens · 116959 ms · 2026-08-01T00:26:50.658369+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose the Virtual Process Dossier (VPD), a Knowledge Graph-based data catalogue that also captures workflow provenance. We developed VPD for multi-stage manufacturing use-cases where downstream AI-based optimization tasks require to distinct between datasets generated during individual workflow steps. VPD provides these datasets in a FAIR manner and makes both prospective and retrospective workflow provenance explicit. Our contributions are: (1) the VPD ontology that serves as the catalogue's semantic core; (2) the VPD provenance framework that integrates ontology instantiation into the production environment; and (3) the VPD user interface that provides human-centered interaction with the VPD Knowledge Graph. The ontology and code are available at https://github.com/kubeluk/VirtualProcessDossier .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27840 by Alexander Bott, Frank D\"ohner, Georg Zeeb, Julia Butte, Julius Pfrommer, J\"urgen Beyerer, Lukas Kubelka, Saksham Kiroriwal, Tobias K\"afer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The VPD is our approach to FAIR data management in multi-stage workflow domains such as manufacturing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The multi-step manufacturing workflow presenting our running example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: VPD-O view on sensor activities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VPD-O view on datasets. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: VPD-O view on machine activities. 3 4 < vpd / ds /1# it > a dcat : Dataset ; 5 dcat : theme < wfI /1# it > ; 6 dcat : distribution [ 7 a dcat : Distribution ; 8 dcat : downloadURL < http :// store . example . org / path / to / file . csv > 9 ] ; 10 prov : wasGeneratedBy < wfI /1/ root / heatingAndForming / heating / sense /1# it > . 4.2.2 Machines and Parameters. Next, from the competency questions we can … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: VPD-O view on parameter shapes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: VPD-O view on physical products. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W3C Recommendation REC- vocab-dcat-3, W3C (Aug 2024),https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/

    Albertoni, R., Browning, D., Cox, S.J.D., et al.: Data catalog vocabulary (dcat). W3C Recommendation REC- vocab-dcat-3, W3C (Aug 2024),https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/

    2024

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT 2013 Workshops

    Alper, P., Belhajjame, K., Goble, C.A., et al.: Enhancing and abstracting scientific workflow provenance for data publishing. In: Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT 2013 Workshops. p. 313–318. EDBT ’13, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA (2013). doi:10.1145/2457317.2457370

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    In: The Semantic Web: 22nd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2025, Portoroz, Slovenia, June 1–5, 2025, Proceedings, Part II

    Carriero, V .A., Scrocca, M., Baroni, I., et al.: Procedural knowledge ontology (pko). In: The Semantic Web: 22nd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2025, Portoroz, Slovenia, June 1–5, 2025, Proceedings, Part II. p. 334–350. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94578-6_19

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94578-6_19 2025

  4. [4]

    W3c recommendation, W3C (Feb 2014),https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/

    Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., Lanthaler, M.: Rdf 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. W3c recommendation, W3C (Feb 2014),https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/

    2014

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems co-located with 19th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2020)

    Dibowski, H., Schmid, S., Svetashova, Y ., et al.: Using semantic technologies to manage a data lake: Data catalog, provenance and access control. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems co-located with 19th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2020). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2757, p...

    2020

  6. [6]

    In: AMCIS 2015 Proceedings (2015)

    Dinter, B., Gluchowski, P., Schieder, C.: A stakeholder lens on metadata management in business intelligence and big data – results of an empirical investigation. In: AMCIS 2015 Proceedings (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    In: Linked Data Patterns: A pattern catalogue for modelling, publishing, and consuming Linked Data

    Dodds, L., Davis, I.: Qualified relation. In: Linked Data Patterns: A pattern catalogue for modelling, publishing, and consuming Linked Data. Online (2022),https://patterns.dataincubator.org/

    2022

  8. [8]

    RFC 3987, IETF (Jan 2005), https: //www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987 9https://w3id.org/pko#nextAlternativeStep 11 Virtual Process DossierA PREPRINT

    Dürst, M.J., Suignard, M.: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987, IETF (Jan 2005), https: //www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987 9https://w3id.org/pko#nextAlternativeStep 11 Virtual Process DossierA PREPRINT

    2005

  9. [9]

    In: Database and Expert Systems Applications - DEXA 2021 Workshops

    Ehrlinger, L., Schrott, J., Melichar, M., et al.: Data catalogs: A systematic literature review and guidelines to implementation. In: Database and Expert Systems Applications - DEXA 2021 Workshops. pp. 148–158. Springer International Publishing (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Data & Knowledge Engineering101, 1–23 (2016),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2015.11.003

    Feilmayr, C., Wöß, W.: An analysis of ontologies and their success factors for application to business. Data & Knowledge Engineering101, 1–23 (2016),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2015.11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.datak.2015.11.003 2016

  11. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Linked Science

    Garijo Verdejo, D., Gil, Y .: Augmenting prov with plans in p-plan: Scientific processes as linked data. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Linked Science. vol. 951. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2012), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-951/

    2012

  12. [12]

    W3c recommendation, W3C (Mar 2013), https: //www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/

    Gearon, P., Passant, A., Polleres, A.: Sparql 1.1 update. W3c recommendation, W3C (Mar 2013), https: //www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/

    2013

  13. [13]

    Gröger, C.: There is no ai without data. Commun. ACM64(11), 98–108 (Oct 2021). doi:10.1145/3448247

    work page doi:10.1145/3448247 2021

  14. [14]

    an overview of the prov family of documents

    Groth, P., Moreau, L.: Prov-overview. an overview of the prov family of documents. W3c working group note, W3C (April 2013),https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/

    2013

  15. [15]

    W3C Recommendation REC-vocab-ssn, W3C (Oct 2017), https://www.w3

    Haller, A., Janowicz, K., Cox, S., et al.: Semantic sensor network (ssn) ontology / sosa: Sensor, observation, sample, and actuator ontology. W3C Recommendation REC-vocab-ssn, W3C (Oct 2017), https://www.w3. org/TR/vocab-ssn/

    2017

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1007/s00778-017-0486-1

    Herschel, M., Diestelkämper, R., Ben Lahmar, H.: A survey on provenance: What for? what form? what from? The VLDB Journal26(6), 881–906 (Dec 2017). doi:10.1007/s00778-017-0486-1

    doi:10.1007/s00778-017-0486-1 2017

  17. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data

    Herschel, M., Hlawatsch, M.: Provenance: On and behind the screens. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. p. 2213–2217. SIGMOD ’16, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA (2016). doi:10.1145/2882903.2912568

    arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Datenbank-Spektrum23(2), 89–96 (2023)

    Jahnke, N.F., Otto, B.: Data catalogs in the enterprise: Applications and integration. Datenbank-Spektrum23(2), 89–96 (2023). doi:10.1007/s13222-023-00445-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s13222-023-00445-2 2023

  19. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW)

    Käfer, T., Harth, A.: Rule-based programming of user agents for linked data. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW). CEUR-WS (2018),http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2073/#article-05

    2018

  20. [20]

    In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2018: 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8–12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I

    Käfer, T., Harth, A.: Specifying, monitoring, and executing workflows in linked data environments. In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2018: 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8–12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I. p. 424–440. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2018). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00671- 6_25

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00671- 2018

  21. [21]

    W3c recommendation, W3C (Jul 2017), https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

    Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes constraint language (shacl). W3c recommendation, W3C (Jul 2017), https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

    2017

  22. [22]

    IEEE Access13, 83297–83319 (2025)

    Kropshofer, J., Schrott, J., Wöß, W., et al.: A survey on the functionalities of data catalog tools. IEEE Access13, 83297–83319 (2025). doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3568542

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    In: 2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI)

    Labadie, C., Legner, C., Eurich, M., et al.: Fair enough? enhancing the usage of enterprise data with data catalogs. In: 2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). vol. 1, pp. 201–210 (2020). doi:10.1109/CBI49978.2020.00029

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    W3C Recommendation TR-prov-o, W3C (Apr 2013),https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

    Lebo, T., Sahoo, S., McGuinness, D., et al.: PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. W3C Recommendation TR-prov-o, W3C (Apr 2013),https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

    2013

  25. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Capturing Scientific Knowledge (Sciknow 2019)

    Markovic, M., Garijo, D., Edwards, P.: Linking abstract plans of scientific experiments to their corresponding execution traces. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Capturing Scientific Knowledge (Sciknow 2019). CEUR-WS (Oct 2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    W3C Working Group Note, W3C (Nov 2004),https://www.w3.org/submissions/OWL-S/

    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., et al.: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Working Group Note, W3C (Nov 2004),https://www.w3.org/submissions/OWL-S/

    2004

  27. [27]

    In: 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP 13)

    Missier, P., Dey, S., Belhajjame, K., et al.: D-PROV: Extending the PROV provenance model with Workflow structure. In: 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP 13). USENIX Associ- ation, Lombard, IL (Apr 2013), https://www.usenix.org/conference/tapp13/technical-sessions/ presentation/missier

    2013

  28. [28]

    Publications Office of the European Union: DCAT Application profile for data portals in Europe (DCAT-AP), https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/dcat-ap, Accessed: Nov 30 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    25504/FAIRsharing.d3pqw7, Accessed: Nov 30 2025 12 Virtual Process DossierA PREPRINT

    QUDTOrganization: Fairsharing.org: Qudt; quantities, units, dimensions and types, https://doi.org/10. 25504/FAIRsharing.d3pqw7, Accessed: Nov 30 2025 12 Virtual Process DossierA PREPRINT

    2025

  30. [30]

    In: Proc

    Schilling, R., Aier, S., Winter, R., et al.: Design dimensions for enterprise-wide data management: A chief data officer’s journey. In: Proc. 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 53) (2020), https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/64456/0576.pdf

    2020

  31. [31]

    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(9), 793–818 (2009),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2009.02.015, sixth International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2008) – Five selected and extended papers

    work page doi:10.1016/j.datak.2009.02.015 2009

  32. [32]

    Scientific Data3, 160018 (3 2016),https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 A Further Figures Figure 6: VPD-O view on parameter shapes

    Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., et al.: The fair guiding principles for scientific data manage- ment and stewardship. Scientific Data3, 160018 (3 2016),https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 A Further Figures Figure 6: VPD-O view on parameter shapes. Figure 7: VPD-O view on physical products. 13

    doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 2016