- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:48:46 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Carl, Thanks for your feedback. Allow me to respond to your points 2 and 3. You are right that for a use case, we typically abstract away from tools and technology. XML would also be relevant. However, you will recall that this WG belongs to the W3C Semantic Web activity. Hence, we thought it was useful to illustrate some facets of the Linked Open Data approach. In particular, given the work of the RDF2 working group, we believe it is important to put elements of the emerging "Semantic Web Architecture" in the scenario (at some point, later in our discussions, it will be useful to understand what graph concepts [1] mean from a provenance view point). You will also note that not everything is RDF in the scenario. Regarding turtle, see [2]. I trust this is acceptable for you and the WG. Cheers, Luc [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/GraphConceptTerminology [2] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ On 05/18/2011 02:14 AM, Carl Reed wrote: > Finally had a chance to review the provenance use case. A few comments. > > 1. If we added a map showing the location of the event, then we can > begin to cover many of the provenance requirements of the GIS, > location services, and other communities that make use of geographic > data. Also, the chart could be related to data shown on the map. A > pretty common occurrence. > 2. I have to ask why we are assuming that the data is published as > RDF. Typically in a use case, tools or technologies are abstracted. > The data could just as easily have been published as XML (which for > statistics data and map data is probably the case). I think we should > simply state the GovData source publishes the data using a standard > encoding language. > 3. I am not familiar with turtle serialization so I did a bit of > research. I checked Druple and Wordpress. They do not use turtle > serialization. I checked Wikipedia. No entry that I could find. So, > perhaps we should again not mention a specific technology - just > simply state that the analyst downloads a serialization (could just as > easily be RDFa). > > Cheers > > Carl > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Groth" <pgroth@gmail.com> > To: "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> > Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: Source data for provenance graph in > ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 > > >> Hi Tim, >> >> We are no longer using that wiki page. >> >> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample >> >> There is no graph on that page. >> >> cheers, >> Paul >> >> Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> prov-wg, >>> >>> Is the source for >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:ProvenanceGraph1.jpg available? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim Lebo >>> >>> c.f. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 >> >> > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 07:49:19 UTC