Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

All that said, it might be of value to, at the end, develop a schema based
on what we define in RDF and provide lifting and lowering mapping schemas
like in SAWSDL for the folks who really, really want XML-only. Note that I'm
not one of those people. :-)

Jim

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Graham,
> I am happy with your suggestion.
> Luc
>
>
> On 26/08/11 08:18, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26/08/2011 00:05, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> Responses interleaved.
>>>
>>> On 25/08/11 14:03, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/08/2011 23:15, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML
>>>>> and
>>>>> not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/76<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/76>
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that the examples of section 4 are already expressed in RDF
>>>>> turtle, is
>>>>> there any value in also expressing them in RDF/XML?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Since you seem to target the rdf community, i confirm i see no point in
>>> having
>>> both rdf turtle and rdf/xml.
>>>
>>
>> (It's not just me targeting the RDF community.  So does the WG charter.)
>>
>> The rationale for including both formats is that Turtle is what many RDF
>> developers are most comfortable using, but RDF/XML is (for now at least) the
>> official recommended interchange format for RDF.  Personally, I wouldn't
>> mind a spec that only mentioned Turtle, but when I've had such discussions
>> in the past in standards groups, there has been a strong desire to also
>> include example using the standard RDF/XML format.
>>
>>  If we want some take up by the XML community, we should have proper XML
>>>>> examples, with corresponding XML schemas.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see sufficient value in this, given the provenance aware
>>>> applications
>>>> are likely to deal with RDF anyway (per charter), and the JSON option
>>>> provides
>>>> ease of use. If it's really needed, I'd suggest making an XML format for
>>>> provenance discovery service description part of D5 deliverable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> D5 deliverable is about the model, not the PAQ.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but it also targets XML developers.
>>
>> Reflecting on this, I am inclined to *reduce* the examples given in the
>> text to only JSON, then add any other examples, including XML, in an
>> appendix.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim
--
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu