W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:57:17 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d8c88c83cea6b9e5f4dafd88ce1125c1o98EvH08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50742D3D.8060706@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Simon, I added your suggestion.
Luc

On 10/09/2012 02:40 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Sorry, clicked Send prematurely. I was going to say:
> I think the response is good in being precise, but perhaps we could 
> add an introductory intuitive statement directly answering the 
> question? For example:
> No, PROV by itself does not require IDs to be unique in a bundle, but 
> you may have to ensure this in order to perform certain operations on 
> the PROV data or to meet other best practice.
> thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Miles, Simon
> *Sent:* 09 October 2012 14:38
> *To:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on 
> insertion, context [prov-dm]
>
> Hello Luc,
> I think the response is good in being precise, but perhaps we could 
> add an intuitive statement
> we have to
> ensure that IDs don't clash in the database insertion code? or is the
> understanding that IDs are only meant to be unique within a given bundle
> context?
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 09 October 2012 13:24
> *To:* Graham Klyne; Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on 
> insertion, context [prov-dm]
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to bring this issue to a close.  I have drafted a 
> response, available
> from
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-482_.28Bundles_and_IDs.29
> and copied below.
>
> Comments welcome.
> Luc
>
>
>
>>       ISSUE-482 (Bundles and IDs)
>>
>>   * Original
>>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0004.html
>>
>>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482
>>   * Group Response:
>>       o PROV specifications define a notion of bundle, but do not
>>         define operations on bundles such as merge. The definition of
>>         such operations is left to implementations.
>>       o The prov-constraints document defines a notion of validity in
>>         the presence of bundles. Validity is determined by checking
>>         validity of bundles, individually, irrespective of other
>>         existing bundles. For instance, the following document,
>>         containing two bundles is valid.
>>
>> document
>>   prefix ex <http://example.org/>
>>   bundle ex:b1
>>      entity(ex:e1)
>>   endBundle
>>
>>   bundle ex:b2
>>      activity(ex:e1)
>>   endBundle
>> endDocument
>>
>>  *
>>       o Other specifications may provide some guidance regarding this
>>         issue. For instance, the Architecture of the World Wide Web,
>>         Volume One, provides principles, constraints, and good
>>         practice notes about the use of IRIs.
>>
>>   * References:
>>       o PROV validity and
>>         bundles:http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#bundle-constraints
>>
>>       o Web Architecture and
>>         URIs:http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources
>>
>>   * Changes to the document: none
>>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>>
>>
>>     [edit
>>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=40>]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/06/2012 01:55 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On 06/09/2012 12:55, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> I agree that the use of trig may cause confusion. I however think we
>>> can show bundles in rdf just using the concept of a data file to
>>> illustrate bundles so we would remove any cause for confusion.
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> This whole use of bundles is (potentially) pushing the boundaries of 
>> what RDF is currently defined to handle.
>>
>> We can do as you suggest, but do we assume the graphs are merged or 
>> kept separately?  If separate, I don't think RDF says anything that 
>> constrains the interpretations used for un-merged RDF graphs.  If we 
>> assume they are, or can be, merged then what you said before about 
>> denoting same resource applies.
>>
>> (If RDF Datasets were not on the horizon, I'd probably just be 
>> agreeing with you.)
>>
>> #g
>> -- 
>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Graham 
>>> Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2012 17:37, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is inherited. Once you start using URIs you are
>>>>> bound to their semantics which means they denote the same resource.
>>>>> Furthermore, I think it would be weird for us to say anything 
>>>>> about it
>>>>> as it's treading on other specs turf.
>>>>
>>>> With RDF as it stands, I agree.  And I agree about not treading on 
>>>> other
>>>> specifications' turf.
>>>>
>>>> But an option that I don't think is entirely resolved is how 
>>>> bundles are
>>>> represented in RDF:  as I recall, some of the examples in the 
>>>> ontology document
>>>> use TRiG notation for bundles, which goes beyond current RDF but 
>>>> which *might*
>>>> correspond to datasets in the forthcoming version of RDF.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any consensus on semantics for 
>>>> datasets ... but
>>>> it is conceivable that URIs in named graphs within a Dataset won't be
>>>> constrained to use the same (model theoretic) interpretation (via 
>>>> which the
>>>> denotation is obtained) as the default graph or other named 
>>>> graphs.  In which
>>>> case the assumption of inheritance may be off.  All this is 
>>>> speculation, but I'm
>>>> bothered that we get to this stage without a clear steer from the RDF
>>>> Datasets/named graph situation.
>>>>
>>>> Which I suppose may be why the provenance specs are currently 
>>>> silent on the
>>>> issue of how ids in different bundles are related.
>>>>
>>>> #g
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Luc 
>>>>> Moreau<l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to establish whether this question requires 
>>>>>> clarifications in
>>>>>> our documents or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which IDs are we referring to here? Bundle IDs or IDs of 
>>>>>> entities/agents/etc
>>>>>> asserted in bundles?
>>>>>> I assume it's entity/agent/etc IDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that both prov-dm and prov-constraints are silent about 
>>>>>> how to
>>>>>> interpret a given identifier
>>>>>> used in two different bundles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, we can write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bundle b1
>>>>>>     entity(id)
>>>>>> endBundle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bundle b2
>>>>>>      activity(id)
>>>>>> endBundle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is valid provenance (according to prov-constraints). It is 
>>>>>> not required
>>>>>> explicitly by prov-dm/prov-constraints
>>>>>> that the identifier/uri id denotes the same resource in both 
>>>>>> bundles.  But
>>>>>> isn't this a principle automatically
>>>>>> "inherited" from the Web architecture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/08/12 20:27, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tracker, this is the original email from satra:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+A4wO=MwhCCMfaaRJwpBsfN6JCCOh_AhAkANxuP7wUhNNamFg@mail.gmail.com 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue 
>>>>>> Tracker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context
>>>>>> [prov-dm]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if one were implementing a database storing prov bundles, would 
>>>>>> we have to
>>>>>> ensure that IDs don't clash in the database insertion code? or is 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> understanding that IDs are only meant to be unique within a given 
>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>> context?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> satra
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 13:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC