- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:21:04 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: Ontology
The syntax used in the examples should be mentioned (it is TriG http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/trig/).
Per Graham in email http://www.w3.org/mid/5023A271.90500@ninebynine.org :
Ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/
(Currently, I'm posing this as a question I need to understand order to reason coherently about aspects of provenance expressed in RDF, but I may also raise it as a formal issue.)
I can't see a specification or citation for the syntax used for examples in PROV-O.
This may seem like a trivial point, but I think it's a serious omission. In particular, I'm trying to interpret how the mentionOf and bundle structure plays out when represented in RDF and, while I can make guesses, that's not a sound basis for interpretation.
Most of the examples appear to conform with Turtle (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/), but there are some (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle) that do not.
Because such examples given go beyond the current structure expressible as an RDF graph, I think some explanation should be provided about how these should be interpreted as RDF. (E.g. "<id> { <turtle expression> }" could be presented as an RDF document on the web at URI "<id>". If this reflects what is intended, then I think some further comment is needed about when it is valid to merge these graphs, or what kinds of cross-bundle inferences are possible, because the PROV-O ontology alone can't express any of that.)
(Most of this "processing model" concern goes away if we drop mentionOf. But in order to understand how mentionOf plays out in the RDF representation of provenance, as described by the OWL ontology, I need to understand these details.)
#g
--
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 18:21:06 UTC