W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Provenance (was RE: REX evaluation)

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:40:43 -0700
To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>, <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOEEDPEMAA.howardk@fatdog.com>


> I think we're using "RDF" to refer to different things here.
> I recognize that provenance can be very useful in many RDF applications,
> but I don't see provenence within the RDF spec. If it is actually
> realized as triples (and there are ways to do that with provenance
> information), then it's RDF, but if it's meta-information sitting
> outside the RDF data model then I think it's somewhat out of scope.

This is a very interesting thought, and one I've been having myself the past
day or two, tho on the obverse side of the coin. Just because something sits
outside the purview of a particular data model doesn't mean (imo) it should
be considered as lying outside the scope of reference for a query language
that queries that data model. Given my usual experiential frame of reference
(XQuery, no surprise), there were things that the XQuery Founding Fathers
and Mothers included in the data model for XQuery that extended beyond the
data model for XML, altho XQuery's main purpose was arguably simply to query
XML. They decided they needed them (primarily PostSchemaValidationInfoset
information and the concept of multiple doc fragments) however, and that was
that.

In short, there's precedent for devising a data model for an RDF query
language that works with constructs that aren't included in the data model
of RDF itself.

Howard

> I'm glad we've finally gotten down the list to talk about some of these
> objectives that have never really been addressed.
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 23:40:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT