Re: Source data for provenance graph in ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

Hi Carl,

I added a located in England but that seems not to be enough to cover 
this area. I know you suggested adding a map. Could you suggest a couple 
of sentences to be added to the example?

Thanks,
Paul

Carl Reed wrote:
> Graham and Luc -
>
> Thank you for the responses to my questions. Much appreciated. I now
> fully understand the history - and the constraints.
>
> At this point, my concern will now be on how to communicate this
> approach to the GIS/geospatial/sensor community represented by the OGC.
> This is a community that has a great need for standard ways of
> expressing and communicating provenance but also has a huge legacy in
> the use of existing de-facto, vendor specific, and ISO standards, such
> as 19115, and the use of XML, binary encodings, and other serializations
> for expressing metadata.
>
> As part of that outreach and communication to the OGC community, any
> thoughts regarding adding a map to the use case? This would really help!
>
> Also, another question. If some of the elements of provenance
> information have a location element (which I hope is true), any though
> of using GeoSPARQL (geo extensions to SPARQL)? We have shared the
> GeoSPARQL candidate standard with the W3C SPARQL community for comment.
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> Carl
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
> To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: "Paul Groth" <pgroth@gmail.com>; "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu>;
> <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:18 AM
> Subject: 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 15:25:08 UTC