Re: Provenance

On 21 May 2014 10:02, Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> While it's not a top priority, I see an exciting use for some of the recent
> provenance vocab. work. For the Tabular(CSV)->Graph(RDF) route anyhow, as
> it's possible to add extra triples. We may well know the URI of the source
> table, and the URI of the metadata document. That's provenance right there.
> I would suggest (not as a high priority) that a recommended RDF way to
> express this relationship could be included in this work. eg. The triples in
> the output RDF saying it was generated from source document(s) X, using
> metadata Y and process Z at a given time & date by an agent (the
> organisation/person/system making the conversion).
>
> It should be just a handful of extra triples, and optional, but it would be
> good to give people a standard to follow. And also URIs to reference for the
> process followed (the algorithms being discussed now).
>
> You can see an example of what I mean at the top of this TTL file:
> http://data.southampton.ac.uk/dumps/jargon/2014-05-08/jargon.ttl
> (ignore the http://purl.org/void/provenance/ns/ triples, that was the
> previous vocab we used and are now transitioning to
> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#)

I agree that this is important to many publishers/consumers. I'm not
sure this group needs to make a formal recommendation, but including
some examples would be good. Whatever we specify for metadata is just
a basic template - publishers should always be able to augment that
with more specialised or custom properties. CSVs cover too many
domains for us to be able to anticipate all needs in full detail...

Dan

> --
> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg
>
> University of Southampton Open Data Service: http://data.southampton.ac.uk/
> You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 09:50:09 UTC