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 16:54:15 +0200
Message-ID: <50758C17.7040502@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Le 10/10/2012 16:02, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
> On 10/10/2012 09:48 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>

[skip]

>>
>>
>>> 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.

I cannot say if they are Ok or even if they are considering it 
seriously, since I'm not involved in the PROV WG, but from what I read 
in their documents (PROV-DM and PROV-CONSTRAINT, the only ones I've 
read), it looks like they could simply rely on TriG to serialise PROV 
documents. They could still use Turtle or RDF/XML for the special---yet 
common---case of simple provenance instances without bundles.


AZ.


>
> -- 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
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 14:54:45 GMT

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