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

Re: RDF named graph use case and requirement

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:53:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnMv9jnk1i51z_Hn46RKjuqZRfbWkdS3y9qs1B2X-iaVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 14:49, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> That may work fine until you want to record the provenance of the provenance
> itself.  I think the two entities would necessarily have different
> provenance records, even though the stated provenance itself may be the same
> - how are wasGeneratedBy statements attached to the provenance itself?

Depends if it is part of the same provenance account or not.. I did it
like this (self-describing):

# This document is the provenance container (or is that prov:Account ?)
<> a prov:ProvenanceContainer ;
    prov:wasGeneratedBy [
        # Metadata about who generated the provenance container
        a prov:ProcessExecution, wf:ProvenanceExport ;
        prov:used :workflowRun ;
        prov:wasControlledBy :workflowEngine
    ] .

Anyone else asserting something about this provenance container will
have to refer to its URI in a different resource/graph/provenance
container.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:54:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT