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 16:24:45 -0400
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4F37BB6D-613D-46A7-A0B9-251195B51C34@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On Oct 10, 2012, at 16:10 , Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> OK, thats good. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "instruction" :-)
> 

You just gave them in your previous mail...:-)

Ivan


> Pat
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> Pat
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
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 20:25:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT