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

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:14:09 +0200
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0A44318-16F8-42F5-B399-55A6A4987843@cyganiak.de>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
On 10 Oct 2012, at 16:54, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> 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.

In PROV-O they say that how exactly to represent bundle contents is out of scope of PROV-O.

Using RDF datasets and TriG would work from a technical point of view with a few comments about the assumed relationships between the IRIs and graphs, but they don't attempt that at the moment.

Funny enough, PROV-O has some examples that use TriG syntax. They don't say what the syntax is, and don't reference any spec that defines the syntax -- they just provide the examples without comment on the syntax.

Best,
Richard



> 
> 
> 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 15:14:44 GMT

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