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

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

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:28:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRov7pThZsBghYpLYdKRr8h48rw2EwsVv0J0mP9+U+L0oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I think I forgot my periods.

It should be

<>  a prov:Bundle;
 prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
    prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob.

my:report1
    a my:Report, prov:Entity.

So there are no quads.

The <> refers to the document (or base url).

So maybe for all clarity we should ensure that the base url is clearly
a document eg. http://www.example.com/example.ttl

What your doing is just saying that the current document is a bundle.

cheers
Paul

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
> Hi Paul and Ivan,
> Thanks for the responses!
>
>>
>> I would suggest the following for modifying the example:
>>
>> ## A provenance file located a http://example.com/provbundle1
>>
>> @base:     <http://example.com/provbundle1> .
>> @prefix my:      <http://example.com/my#> .
>> @prefix prov:    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
>>
>> <>  a prov:Bundle;
>>    prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
>>    prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob;
>>
>> my:report1
>>  a my:Report, prov:Entity;
>
>
> I may be missing something, but I interpret the above example as:
> 1. <> my:report1 a my:Report . and <> my:report1 a prov:Entity. - are quads
> instead of triples?
>
> Did you mean to have an explicit predicate linking statements (reports) to
> the bundle
>
> <bundle1>
>    a prov:Bundle ;
>    <contains> my:report1, my:report2 ;
>    prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
>
> with rest of the statements from your example following?
>
> ("contains" being a locally defined predicate.)
>
> or both bundle1 and report1 to be bundles? - in that case both would be same
> as any other entity?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>>
>>  my:version "1";
>>  prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:00:01"^^xsd:dateTime;
>>  .
>>
>>
>> If you want to get really fancy, you can switch the bases in the
>> middle of the example to talk about multiple files (i.e. bundles).
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> > On 11 Sep 2012, at 02:53, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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)?
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the idea was *not* to refer TriG explicitly and, as Paul
>> > suggests,
>> > use different (Turtle) documents for the bundles for now. TriG is
>> > especially
>> > problematic as a reference: there are references that the community uses
>> > here and there and which do not even exist any more:-(
>> >
>> > That being said, the RDF WG may be in a better shape than we look to the
>> > outside, and it is not impossible that a TriG document will be published
>> > before the end of the year. Ie, we may make the editorial change of
>> > using
>> > TriG later in the process (the examples are non normative anyway). We
>> > should
>> > go for the safe option in my view, which is Paul's proposal in my view.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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
>
>



-- 
--
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
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:29:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:29:15 GMT