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

Re: RDF named graph use case and requirement

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:05:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4E80A2D5.8020400@ninebynine.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Where would the provenance graph itself sit in this?  If it's connected to the 
ProvenanceContainer, then that would be fine.

#g
--

On 26/09/2011 16:53, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 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.
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 07:35:47 GMT

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