W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2013

RDF-ISSUE-143: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs? [RDF Semantics]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:51:37 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VOrNJ-0004Xt-Ms@shauna.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-143: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs? [RDF Semantics]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/143

Raised by: Guus Schreiber
On product: RDF Semantics

Comment from Paul Groth: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0030.html

Hi All,

I was reviewing the Trig spec. We use trig to express nanopublications -
light weight forms of provenance attached to graphs. Each nanopublication
has three graphs associated with it:

- an assertion graph
- a publication info graph
- a provenance graph

The provenance graph points to the the assertion graph.

GRAPH :assert { ... }
GRAPH :provenance { :assert prov:wasDerivedFrom :xyz . }

Is this ok with what's coming out?

I ask because we have a ton of post translational modifications and protein
isoforms modeled like this [1]/

Thanks!
Paul

[1] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj461.pdf
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 15:51:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:16 UTC