W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > December 2012

comments on prov from dydra

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:29:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRq+KzGjt+iSh+MAWQ13ZJT8FN48SMJ2h2o8YCKJeqC9wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Cc: james@dydra.com

James Anderson (cc'd) asked me to forward his comments below.


we are a rdf cloud service[1] and intend to support the provenance
standard. as such, we would very much like to respond to your
invitation for information about implementations. you will facilitate
this to a great degree, if you structure your standard such that it
expresses clearly what to implement for which purpose.

with respect to rdf storage systems, it appears that the
implementation wiki page[2] relates just two: callimachus and
openrdf. given even just these two, however, the implementations are
not particularly interoperable. it would serve your effort greatly,
if you would add to the standard clear specifications for the
ontology subset and the interpretation to be applied to the
respective terms for certain known use cases for rdf stores and
sparql services.

for example, in the literature and implementations described by the
documents referenced from the w3c pages, three clear "provenance
profiles" stand out
- statements
- named graphs
- resources
each of the three cases entails its own ontology / data model subset.
if your documents are to serve the "inter-operable interchange of
provenance information" they should specify the required vocabulary
for each of these cases and provide examples which demonstrate
generation, access to and interpretation of provenance information in
each case.

best regards, from berlin,
[1] : dydra.com
[2] : http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations
james anderson | james@datagraph.org | jam <james@dydra.com>
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 07:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:09:00 UTC