W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-prov@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Use case for g-snaps

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:50:36 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-prov@w3.org
Message-Id: <90F37E20-DA7E-4DED-B34F-FC5F2B6FE281@cyganiak.de>
To: Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
On 3 Oct 2011, at 16:45, Kai Eckert wrote:
> I see no difference between a constant g-box (however that is represented, e.g. by stating that it is constant) and a URI of a g-snap (you said graph, I assume g-snap) from a user's POV. The question is, if such a mechanism (identifiable, dereferencable g-snap/constant g-box) is inside the scope of the RDF WG. If it is not, is there a WG that fits?

Thinking out loud, without any judgement on the different options:

1. Prov-WG probably requires *some* solution to this in order to properly represent provenance in RDF, so Prov-WG might define it.

2. RDF-WG might define it, probably as a new addition to the RDF Schema vocabulary

3. GLD-WG might define it, as it has several work items about blessing (or, in the absence of good existing specs, standardizing) several vocabularies, including a “metadata vocabulary suitable for provenance”.

4. We might document some best practice how to assert that a graph is “frozen” using existing vocabularies such as DC.

5. We might defer it to the community.

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 15:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 15:51:07 GMT