Re: Source data for provenance graph in ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

Carl Reed wrote:
> 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.

While I agree that the conceptual model for provenance should stand 
independently of any particular representation, the use of RDF is somewhat baked 
into the WG charter (http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter):

(1) Use of RDFS and OWL for describing the formal model

(2) use of SPARQL for querying provenance

both of which require that the provenance information can be presented with 
respect to the RDF abstract syntax (however it may be represented internally), 
and suggests use of RDF/XML (this currently being *the* original W3C 
RECommendation for exchanging RDF data, and this being a W3C working group). 
(RDFa is also formally a recommendation, but my sense is that this is primarily 
useful for mixing RDF and human-readable text in a single document, and is not 
necessarily ideal for exchanging raw provenance data, but that's up for debate.)

> 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).

Yes, any of the common RDF serializations could be used, but in the interests of 
interoperability I think we should be prepared to recommend one as the PIL (or 
whatever we call it).

Choices:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ (RDF/XMK)
- http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ (N3/Turtle)
- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ (RDFa)

Each have different advantages in different environments, but at heart they all 
convey the same underlying abstract syntax and semantics:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ (abstract syntax)
- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ (semantics)

#g

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 10:59:44 UTC