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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:53:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6yMcOgs-96nxnEdHqi0St4JoWii7s7LE7L1bAVwuFWadA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,
I am following up on this issue for prov-o.

I looked up the turtle WD http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ and could not find
an appropriate construct for representing a prov bundle. Trig seems to be
only way to represent a RDF named graph, unless we want to use a blank node
for a bundle (http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#unlabeled-bnodes)? The RDF WG
also seems to be still discussing the issue (
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdf11-concepts-20120605/#section-dataset).

Hence, do we resolve this issue by referring to Trig explicitly in the
prov-o document (for now)?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> If we can do that, it would certainly be fool proof for now...
>
> Ivan
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:56 , Paul Groth wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > For this issue, I wonder if the best approach would be to give
> > examples of bundles that don't use trig. Then, we would be turtle
> > compatible and wouldn't have confusion when whatever extended syntax
> > comes out.
> >
> > We can just show it as two separate documents.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 14, 2012, at 20:21 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> As I put in one of my earlier comments, it is probably wise to refer to
> the current RDF WG Working Draft, too, in the references:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
> >>
> >> Turtle is currently in Last Call. It may not win the race and become a
> Rec before Prov does, but citing it at least as a work in progress makes a
> lot of sense. (And, who knows, Turtle might become Rec earlier.)
> >>
> >> The TriG stuff is clearly not yet there and therefore the ...#Bundle is
> indeed illegal syntax.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not sure it is worth going down that route. For those one or two
> examples I think, for the time being, referring to TriG should be fine. I
> cannot predict whether the RDF WG may come up with a syntax in time; I
> would not bet on it...
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> (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
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >> mobile: +31-641044153
> >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> > Assistant Professor
> > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
> >  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> > - The Network Institute
> > VU University Amsterdam
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 00:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 September 2012 00:53:38 GMT