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

Re: PROV-Overview comments

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:32:58 -0500
Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2CFE3F8E-0AD4-40A9-B5C3-A07C6623F38E@rpi.edu>
To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
James,

Thank you for your interest in PROV and for considering its implementation in your RDF cloud service.

We have logged your comment in our issue tracker, which you can view at:

https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/610

The working group will discuss your issue and attempt to resolve your concerns.
We will contact you if we need more clarification, but we will certainly provide a formal response to you before the end of the Candidate Recommendation phrase (which ends in January).

Thanks again.

Regards,
Tim Lebo

p.s. Tracker, this is ISSUE 610


On Dec 14, 2012, at 4:00 AM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:

> good morning,
> 
> On 2012-12-14, at 07:26 , Paul Groth wrote:
> 
>> Hi James
>> 
>> No need to subscribe you can just send email directly to public-prov-comments@w3.org
> 
> it is difficult to comprehend an issue when one is party to just one side of the conversation. i suppose i could follow the archive, but that would be rather cumbersome. i proceed as you suggest.
> 
>> 
>> I'll forward your comments but just to say have you looked at prov-o the provenance owl ontology.
>> 
> 
> thank you.
> 
> yes i have. my concern could be addressed by adding a normative appendix which specified an ontology profile for each of the three use cases that i described, below. i did read, that there are categories of terms - on one hand basic/extended/qualified and on the other subclasses of respective category, but there is
> a, no indication that a compliant provenance information source may provide just a subset,
> b, no coherent subset is describe for any of these use cases, and
> c, it may be, that some cross section of those categories is appropriate to achieve coherence for these use cases, and, in particular, perhaps a different one for each case.
> 
> the working group may feel, that this is not within your mandate, but rather it is the responsibility of a sparql working group. to that, i can only reiterate my observation, that the two sparql/rdf implementations evident in the w3c list did not share a view of what those profiles should be, which certainly does not contribute to your group's interoperability goal.
> 
> best refards, from berlin,
> 
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 1:38, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> good morning,
>>> 
>>> upon the publication of your latest provenance document set, i
>>> attempted to subscribe to the indicated comments mailing list in
>>> order to submit a comment. the w3c response then pointed me at a web
>>> page intended to manage the group, which page permits access to
>>> members only. please advise me once public subscription is possible.
>>> 
>>> in the meantime, if you would be able to forward a comment, that
>>> would be helpful.
>>> 
>>> 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 | james@dydra.com | http://
>>> dydra.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> ---
> james anderson | james@datagraph.org | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 15:33:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 15:33:26 GMT