W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:54:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4E5F8E78.3040506@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
See:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#provenance-services

and

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#provenance-service-format-examples

I've only put placeholders for the XML examples so far.

#g
--

On 26/08/2011 09:42, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> I am happy with your suggestion.
> Luc
>
> On 26/08/11 08:18, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/08/2011 00:05, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> Responses interleaved.
>>>
>>> On 25/08/11 14:03, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>> On 22/08/2011 23:15, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and
>>>>> not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/76
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that the examples of section 4 are already expressed in RDF turtle, is
>>>>> there any value in also expressing them in RDF/XML?
>>>
>>> Since you seem to target the rdf community, i confirm i see no point in having
>>> both rdf turtle and rdf/xml.
>>
>> (It's not just me targeting the RDF community. So does the WG charter.)
>>
>> The rationale for including both formats is that Turtle is what many RDF
>> developers are most comfortable using, but RDF/XML is (for now at least) the
>> official recommended interchange format for RDF. Personally, I wouldn't mind a
>> spec that only mentioned Turtle, but when I've had such discussions in the
>> past in standards groups, there has been a strong desire to also include
>> example using the standard RDF/XML format.
>>
>>>>> If we want some take up by the XML community, we should have proper XML
>>>>> examples, with corresponding XML schemas.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see sufficient value in this, given the provenance aware applications
>>>> are likely to deal with RDF anyway (per charter), and the JSON option provides
>>>> ease of use. If it's really needed, I'd suggest making an XML format for
>>>> provenance discovery service description part of D5 deliverable.
>>>
>>> D5 deliverable is about the model, not the PAQ.
>>
>> Yes, but it also targets XML developers.
>>
>> Reflecting on this, I am inclined to *reduce* the examples given in the text
>> to only JSON, then add any other examples, including XML, in an appendix.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 13:56:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT