W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations?

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:43:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrk61pw+M74DLuMyyoQUu+p5aCvLdfQ0t-itN7ny4Z+pQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

Thanks for this. I think this is a good way to go. I would suggest a
modified version of your proposal.

[[The mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance
format
used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For
interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a
standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are
available,
selection may be made by content negotiation.
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-aq-20130312/#introduction

A key question is whether we want to make this recommendation around
PROV-O.... One thing I really like about the PAQ is that it's agnostic. We
really separate concerns. Adding a recommendation for PROV-O may muddle
that message. On the other hand, it does push towards better interoperable.

cheers
Paul




On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote:

> Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428
>
> "We mention the rdf mimetype should we mention the other mimetypes in
> section 4.1?"
>
> This has been a somewhat contentious issue, with differing views expressed
> within the WG, so I've called it out for explicit discussion.
>
> The current revision of PROV-AQ is quite agnostic w.r.t. provenance
> formats used
> (and even allows for non-PROV provenance), but it does suggest that
> publishers
> use PROV-O-in-RDF for interoperability:
>
> [[
> Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance
> format
> used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For
> interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a
> standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are
> available,
> selection may be made by content negotiation.
> ]]
> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-aq-20130312/#introduction
>
> The specific text mentioned in the originally raised issue has been
> removed, but
> the question remains about what provenance formats to specify, if any.
>
>
> PROPOSE: to accept the the above text.
>
>
> ...
>
> My thoughts:
>
> I think this is probably as close as we can get to addressing the
> conflicting
> requirements expressed:
> - that developers are free to adopt any format that suits their purpose,
> and
> - some common format requirements are needed for interoperable
> implementations
>
> I suggest that it's OK to leave the interoperability issue incompletely
> resolved
> at this time, as this is just a NOTE and we don't yet have much real
> experience
> with widespread provenance deployment.
>
> In my perception, the indications are that the majority of developers
> interested
> in using provenance data will do so in conjunction with Linked Open Data,
> so a
> guiding nudge in this direction seems appropriate to do, without
> attempting to
> predict what will become the preferred application style and format for
> achieving interoperability.
>
> #g
>
>
>
>


-- 
--
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 Monday, 11 March 2013 12:43:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:23 UTC