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

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

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:26:30 +0100
Message-ID: <50488866.8010902@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:46:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:46:52 GMT