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

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:48:58 +0200
Message-ID: <50757CCA.8020008@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Le 10/10/2012 15:15, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
> On 10/05/2012 11:24 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 05/10/2012 16:50, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>>
>>>> The way you are talking about our recent vote seems to imply that
>>>> we have constrained the PROV WG in a way that prevent them
>>>
>>> No, of course not. We have not constrained anyone to do anything. But
>>> we have also not *provided* them with any means to help them do what
>>> they want to do. We have done nothing: they are on their own. Their
>>> situation regarding RDF usage is exactly what it would have been if
>>> this WG had never convened. They can completely ignore us, as we have
>>> decided to say nothing useful. That is what I propose to tell them.
>>
>> Yes, only with the exception that we are defining the syntax for
>> datasets, which they'll have to align their documents with, if only
>> they choose to rely on this concept.
>>
>> So we can tell them that they can use it for the syntactic structure,
>> and put a reference to us for this, but they indeed are on their own
>> wrt how to interpret the structure.
>>
>
> In Prov, are bundles g-snaps?

Strictly speaking, no, since PROV-DM defines its own data model which is 
not based on RDF. But the data model maps very well with datasets: a 
PROV document is made of:
  - a "toplevel instance" consisting of a set of PROV statements,
  - and zero or more "named instances" called bundles.

PROV statements look like n-ary relation, but we know that they can be 
expressed with a set of triples. So, as far as the syntactic structure 
is concerned, yes it fits very well the dataset structure.


  (It looks like it to me, from a cursory
> reading.) So the weakness here is that we haven't provided them any way
> to name g-snaps?

No, the weakness is that we haven't indicated any relationship between 
the "graph IRI" and the content, nor any meaning for <n,g> pairs, nor 
any relationship between what the "unnamed graph" says and what the 
"named graphs" say. But they could define their own understanding of 
what's a dataset, as long as it is clearly stated in their specs.


> I imagine the use cases include naming them without using TriG (or N3),
> so that suggests the only viable solution is static g-boxes -- that is,
> Web Pages of RDF that promise not to change.

I think TriG works too, even better.


> I can't quite decide if, engineering-wise, that's brilliant or
> ridiculous. As an software developer, I'd probably like some stronger
> guarantees, such as a hash, or the contents of the bundles being
> transmitted in the same document as the assertions about them. The easy
> solution would be a convention for including the hash of the contents in
> the URL. Standards-wise, I guess that looks something like
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 (although I'd
> approach it rather differently, myself).

But I think TriG does work here, as a syntax, so there may not be any 
need for such a thing.


AZ.


>
> -- Sandro
>
>
>> -AZ
>>
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> from using named graphs and RDF datasets for their bundle. But it's
>>>> quite the opposite: we have voted for the absence of constraints!
>>>>
>>>> So they can use the RDF dataset data structure the way they want.
>>>> They simply have to be warned that they should not assume any
>>>> particular meaning for a dataset. Therefore, if they want to use
>>>> this for bundles, they'll have to completely describe all the
>>>> constraints they require when defining a provenance dataset.
>>>> Whatever constraints they define will be consistent with the RDF
>>>> specs, since our set of constraints regarding datasets is empty.
>>>>
>>>> So, I'd have no problem telling them to go ahead and use datasets,
>>>> and be specific in what it means in the context of provenance
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> --AZ
>>>>
>>>> Le 05/10/2012 05:40, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 3:24 PM, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. And it seems to me that it is the second part that really
>>>>> matters. In their original request for comment they particularly
>>>>> mentioned named graphs as a topic of interest in connection with
>>>>> bundles, and I took them to be interested in the possibility
>>>>> that named graphs could be used to construct bundles or implement
>>>>> them in RDF in a natural way. I think, now, the only possible
>>>>> answer is, no.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think they were expecting to find a ready-made bundle in
>>>>> RDF, but there is now nothing in RDF which would even be of
>>>>> utility or help in creating bundles, AFAIKS. They will have to
>>>>> define their own extension to RDF and give it a purpose-built
>>>>> semantics of their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École
>>>> Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel
>>>> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
>>>> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 13:49:29 GMT

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