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

Re: PROV-ONT: turtle for ontology examples

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:27:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnLr76ZN1h9sggvUec88wBXtCzvQiy2b1noOqmOPCj2kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:02, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> I was wondering if there were turtle examples for the ontology document.
>
> I really like the different choice of styles in the owl primer:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

I would really like to see it in Turtle as well - but perhaps there
are specification issues with using Turtle (a Team Submission at the
time of writing) in a normative document.

I would like to see the PROV primer to use Turtle and the abstract
syntax side by side - using RDF/XML here would probably make it
slightly harder to compare, although it is easier to do nesting of
named nodes in RDF/XML.


On the other hands, developers not that much into RDF will find it
hard to find a standard talking about using an ontology which is
described in various different serialisations.

Are you suggesting we do a similar "Hide/show" buttons? With RDF/XML,
Turtle, abstract syntax.. and also the other OWL syntaxes? (Syntaxii?
Syntices?.. well!)


I would find it hard to edit the documents at this early stage if this
is not automatically maintained - but doing so automatically would not
allow us to do "pretty-formatting" - for instance in
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#example-workflow-run
I:

* Deliberately used classnames <wf:Value> instead of <rdf:Description>
with the horrible entity-namespace <rdf:type rdf:resource="&wf;Value">
(This is something else to push the RDF WG on, after all XSD manages
this fine)
* Did "natural" nesting such as <prov:used> <wf:ValueAtPort> </>
* List assertions in semi-chronological order so that resources are
asserted before they are used in other assertions

Some of the other examples in the ontology don't have complete
RDF/XML.. I agree that we should not need to include <rdf:RDF and the
namespaces for everything, but should at least include the closing tag
</rdf:Description> to not look too odd.  I'll fix this today unless
anyone screams.



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 09:28:31 GMT

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