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

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:02:56 -0400
Message-ID: <50758010.60604@w3.org>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/10/2012 09:48 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> 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.
>

So, they're okay with never using RDF/XML or Turtle or RDFa and always 
using TriG or JSON-LD if there are any bundles involved in the 
provenance data?    If so, yes, that would simplify things. Then they 
just need to say a few words about <n,g> pairs, and they're all set.

     -- Sandro

>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 14:03:24 GMT

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