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

Re: Using named graphs to model PROV's Accounts

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:24:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4E94C212.7000000@epimorphics.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-prov@w3.org

On 11/10/11 21:43, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 20:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 11/10/11 19:11, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> rdf-prov,
>>> In preparation for the RDF WG F2F this week, I wanted to provide some discussion on using named graphs to address some provenance modeling.
>>> I have updated http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts to reflect some feedback and extend the discussion on named graphs.
>>> In particular, I discuss:
>>> * reuse of the SPARQL Service Description vocabulary to describe named graphs.
>>> * Meta Named Graph pairs,
>>> * a simple application of these to create Cache Graphs
>>> * the importance of modeling the "location" of a graph to disambiguate many graphs with the same name.
>>> These components are needed to model PROV's notion of Accounts, which permit different agents to assert different views of the same "event" (i.e., ProcessExecution). I hope to wrap up all of this into a final proposal by the end of the week.
>>> Any suggestions or comments appreciated.
>> As a principle (of AWWW), one name can only refer to one thing.
>> "graph" here seems to refer to graph-a-location but also "graph the
>> contents of the location".  But those are different things.
> I might be confused, but it looks to me like Tim is making the best of a
> bad situation: he's trying to use the "name" in a name-graph pair to
> identify a graph/gbox, but he's recognizing that [ because we haven't
> adopted my Web Semantics for Datasets proposal :-) ] the scope of that
> binding is only a single dataset.  He's calling the dataset identifier
> the "location".     At least that's how I'm reading it.

Sandro - I'm surprised you use a phrase like "bad situation".  It's hard 
to see how this can progress if you are starting from that position.

Do you agree that for AWWW and for RDF, one URI denotes one thing?

(this of course does not stop inappropriate modelling and use but we 
can't stop that by architecture anyway).


>       -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 22:24:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:46 UTC