Re: Source data for provenance graph in ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

Sure.

Thanks

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Groth" <pgroth@gmail.com>
To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>
Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:24 AM
Subject: 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 15:53:37 UTC