W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:02:48 -0400
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C96566A3-E7F8-4A2F-9C43-7B787ABDEB31@w3.org>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>

On Oct 4, 2012, at 16:24 , David Wood wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> 
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 15:55, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 
>> David, greetings.
>> 
>> I have been waiting for the WG to make a decision about datasets and named graphs before getting back to the PROV group, as this is the most relevant to their 'bundle' feature. As far as I can see, our recent decision to gove no semantics to datasets means that we contribute nothing to this, and the PROV group are on their own to invent their own graph naming construct and give it the semantics they want, independently from the output of this WG. 
>> 
>> Do you concur? 
> 
> Hmm.  A bundle is "a named set of descriptions, but it is also an entity so that its provenance can be described." [1]    A SPARQL dataset "represents a collection of graphs" and "comprises one graph, the default graph, which does not have a name, and zero or more named graphs, where each named graph is identified by an IRI." [2]
> 
> There is clearly overlap there, but I don't think the overlap is anywhere near complete.  It doesn't appear that the WG is willing to equate a "named set of descriptions" with a "collection of graphs" nor to presuppose some way to then give the dataset a name via an IRI.

I am not sure I understand. Yes, in the abstract sense (ie, in the PROV-DM) a bundle is a named set of descriptions. A set of provenance description is translated into RDF using the PROV-O vocabulary, which means that a bundle is a named set of triples as far as this Working Group is concerned...

> 
> So, it appears to me that we have problems with the PROV-DM document's definition of a Bundle from at least two perspectives:  We don't have semantics for datasets, nor do we have a syntax that we could equate to a bundle.
> 

We do: TriG. A provenance bundle, as the na´ve approach, is a named graph.

The issue is whether the (missing) semantics has any kind of consequence here.

Ivan



> TriG (as currently conceptualized) could provide a syntax for a bundle iff we decide to adopt some way to name the package itself (as some extant systems do, by assigning an IRI upon ingest).  I think both of those rather unlikely at this time, although I don't think implementors will cease doing so (because it is useful).
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong since my reading is still incomplete.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-bundle-entity
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset
> 
> 
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:33 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks, Paul.  We'll get back to you shortly, hopefully prior to your 10 Oct deadline.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 14:52, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>> 
>>>> We had specific questions about PROV-DM and PROV-O that we are keen on
>>>> getting answered.
>>>> 
>>>> From the email to the RDF WG chains on July 24, 2012:
>>>> 
>>>> "We particularly wanted to call your attention to the Bundle feature [5].
>>>> 
>>>> Questions we have are:
>>>> - We are hopeful that the notion of Bundle should map to the notion of
>>>> graph you are defining. Can you look into this?
>>>> - In particular, with respect to Bundle do you see the construct
>>>> Mention[6] as compatible with RDF now and going forward
>>>> - PROV-DM is dependent on rdf types[7]. Do you envisage any further
>>>> changes in the rdf data types?
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, any feedback on the PROV-Ontology document is greatly appreciated."
>>>> 
>>>> Similarly, in prov-constraints we wondered about Bundle and
>>>> specifically terminology of Document and Bundle work with terms you
>>>> will use in RDF. For example, I have heard that the term dataset will
>>>> be used.
>>>> 
>>>> We are keen on getting feedback as soon as possible so that are CR
>>>> document is in-line with what is forthcoming in RDF.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The RDF WG has discussed your questions below and we have decided that it is rather difficult for us to be sure that we are responding in the way you wish.  As you undoubtedly know, the provenance docs are getting rather large and the constraints doc does not stand alone for review.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you able to formulate more targeted questions for us to consider?  For example, are you concerned that a particular feature of PROV Constraints relies upon RDF semantics, or a particular interpretation?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any more detailed guidance would help our reviewers greatly.  Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> --
>>>>> David Wood, Ph.D.
>>>>> 3 Round Stones
>>>>> http://3roundstones.com
>>>>> Cell: +1 540 538 9137
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:29, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you.  We acknowledge your request and have it on our agenda [1] for Wednesday.  We will advise our reviewers to send comments to your comments list [2].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.19#Provenance_Constraints_Review
>>>>>> [2] mailto:public-prov-comments@w3.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:07, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Guus, David,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As you've seen, we just published last call of Constraints of the PROV
>>>>>>> Data Model [1]. We are interested in the RDF WG feedback on this
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Questions we have are:
>>>>>>> - Does the terminology, Bundle and Document work with the terminology
>>>>>>> in the RDF WG?
>>>>>>> - With respect to Bundle and Document do the defined constraints work
>>>>>>> with what is potentially being specified in RDF?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are looking forward to your feedback on this document and also the
>>>>>>> other last call documents.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for your time,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 21:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT