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: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:29:29 -0400
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DD57997F-EA4E-4AB8-A60F-137FB4064617@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Oct 10, 2012, at 11:14 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> 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.

No, because this was pending in this WG. I believe that it would be o.k. for that group to add that extra semantic definition if they are so instructed by the RDF WG.

> 
> 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.
> 

That has already been raised as an issue on the LC documents (by me:-) and these will disappear in the CR version of the document.


> 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/
>> 
> 
> 


----
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 Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:30:06 GMT

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