W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-154 (RDF-provenance-service-uri): Include provenance-service-uri for RDF resources [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:55:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4EDCDB6A.9040901@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

I accept the case for service URI in RDF.

But I have a n nit (not insurmountable):

In this case, the provenance-service-uri is expected to be usable in ways that 
aren't necessarily behaviour of a SPARQL endpoint.  Specifically, dereferencing 
the service URI should retrieve a service description as described in PROV-AQ. 
There is not a specific service description form for indicating a SPARQL 
endpoint, though that could be added easily enough.

OTOH, when using RDF, it might make more sense to include the service 
description directly in the RDF, rather than messing with the service URI 
indirection?  I think there are multiple reasonable choices here, and it's not 
currently obvious which, if any, is best to suggest.  Or when to stop 
enumerating options.

And there's http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/181, which I agree should 
be mentioned.


On 02/12/2011 21:22, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Graham,
> a provenance-service-uri is certainly needed even in the RDF case, as the common practice recently is to host it in a SPARQL endpoint, which is the service one would want to access.
> Regards,
> Tim
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-154 (RDF-provenance-service-uri): Include provenance-service-uri for RDF resources [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/154
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>> (Originally raised by Stephen Cresswell and Luc.  E.g. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0289.html)
>>> If a resource is published by HTTP, or it is HTML or XHTML, then we can
>>> link to provenance by provenance-uri or provenance-service-uri.
>>> If a resource is some form of RDF, then we can give provenance-uri (but
>>> apparently not a provenance-service-uri?).
>> You're the second person to raise this, and on reflection I'm finding it harder to justify the asymmetry.  (Originally I had this idea that the RDF case was somehow different, or aiming at use-cases where the provenance service made less sense, but on reflection I find it hard to sustain that argument.)
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC