W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-dspace@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Provenance for section 3 in technologies.tex

From: Kevin Smathers <kevin.smathers@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:32:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3EFB2E1E.7060407@hp.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'www-rdf-dspace@w3.org'" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>

Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>>statements which are identityless
>>    
>>
>
>statements and statings can have identities.
>  
>

This is off topic, but I was referring to a philosophical issue.  Can 
you identify an abstraction, or only an instance of an abstraction.  One 
argument goes that you can't identify an abstraction because in order to 
give it a place in which it can sit to be identified you must first 
instantiate it, and then you have only identified the instance, not the 
abstraction.  True abstractions are their content, and any attempt to 
fix them in any medium instantiates them.

The take away message is that it is hard to define something which 
really acts like a statement in a system that consists wholly of statings.

I do understand that what you, Jena, mean by a statement can have an 
identity.

>	Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Smathers [mailto:kevin.smathers@hp.com] 
>Sent: 26 June 2003 17:21
>To: Seaborne, Andy
>Cc: Butler, Mark; 'www-rdf-dspace@w3.org'
>Subject: Re: Provenance for section 3 in technologies.tex
>
>
>I thought that Jena 2 was supposed to support the reification of 
>statings; on the face of it, it seems silly to support the 
>identification of statements which are identityless in their 
>abstraction, but not support identification of instances of statements 
>which clearly have identity.
>
>That aside, in the case of Simile I think we should definitely be 
>talking about statings, not statements.  In its use as a recording 
>format for system history we can expect to find many, many copies of 
>identical triples whose only distinction is how they are referred to 
>from other triples.  Collapsing these into a single instance by using 
>statements instead of statings would be to lose all of the information 
>that was recorded in those links.  Likewise, in Genesis statings are 
>more relevant than statements because of the multi-user nature of 
>Genesis -- access controls, ownership, and the like must be tied to 
>instances of a subgraph, not to an abstraction of their content.
>
>Cheers,
>-kls
>
>Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mark,
>>
>>"Quads" is a term used for several different things.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>So although
>>>they are non-standard at the moment, people are using them, so should we
>>>really rule them out?
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Jena could be said to use quads to store reifications.  A statement is
>>stored with an "is reified flag" and it optimizes some uses of reification
>>(particualrly statement, not stating, usage).  We have users who have large
>>datasets who use this internal compression with database-stored statements.
>>It is invisible at the API.  
>>
>>There are operations directed at helping working with reification - these
>>are independent of the storage optimization.  We have had both
>>reification-optimizing and non-optimizing store for the same API.
>>
>>The RDF/XML generated is as per the working group.
>>
>>
>>They are not the same quads as used by RDFStore where the 4th component is
>>    
>>
>a
>  
>
>>URI, and indicates the source of the statement.  This is visible at their
>>API (and in their version of RDQL) and can not be encoded directly in
>>RDF/XML.
>>
>>The formulae in cwm/N3 are another approach again.  These are quoted graphs
>>at the nodes of the containing graph (i.e. a new node type).
>>
>>Using non-standard features precludes interoperability.
>>
>>We need a concrete use case for provenance across systems (not just for
>>managing data within SIMILE).
>>
>>	Andy
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Butler, Mark [mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
>>Sent: 26 June 2003 13:12
>>To: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Provenance for section 3 in technologies.tex
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Dave
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Non-standard extensions would be best avoided if you want 
>>>SIMILE to be a full
>>>participant in the semantic web.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>But to take this back to my original suggestion does this apply to quads?
>>    
>>
>My
>  
>
>>understanding from Andy is that they are used by RDFStore and a number of
>>RSS processors, and from Jeremy that although Jena 2 does not have a quads
>>API it does actually use a quad data structure "under the hood". So
>>    
>>
>although
>  
>
>>they are non-standard at the moment, people are using them, so should we
>>really rule them out?
>>
>>I'd be interested in feedback here from Eric Miller and David Karger also?
>>
>>thanks
>>
>>Mark
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
========================================================
   Kevin Smathers                kevin.smathers@hp.com    
   Hewlett-Packard               kevin@ank.com            
   Palo Alto Research Lab                                 
   1501 Page Mill Rd.            650-857-4477 work        
   M/S 1135                      650-852-8186 fax         
   Palo Alto, CA 94304           510-247-1031 home        
========================================================
use "Standard::Disclaimer";
carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 13:33:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:35:25 EDT