- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:14:24 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=QRJ2yki1JDe2_Ngdant2hSQXOvyc7RRTMdSoU=dSFaYg@mail.gmail.com>
Seeing where there are XML and JSON serializations of RDF, where we have an XML serialization of PROV, and where this is suggested but not required (otherwise, why would we bother making an XML serialization?), I don't see how this is an issue. In plain english, it should come down to: If you can, try to use RDF and PROV-O. Please note that serializations of PROV-O RDF are available in JSON. If you can't or don't want to, use PROV-XML or another documented serialization. Jim On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: > Hi Graham and Paul, > > There are many REST services out there that only support json and/or xml. > It would be nice if those services could support PROV, but we are setting > an extra-hurdle > for those service providers if recommend publication of provenance in RDF. > > I believe that at this stage of take up we should lower the barrier of > adoption for providers. > I would therefore relax the requirements as follows (essentially refer to > PROV instead of PROV-O) > > > [[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 represented in a > format defined by the Provenance Working Group is recommended. Where > alternative formats are available, > > selection may be made by content negotiation. > ]] > > Luc > > > On 11/03/13 12:43, Paul Groth wrote: > > 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 > > > -- > 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 > > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 02:15:08 UTC