- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:56:39 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham, Thanks for exploring simplified ways of expressing provenance. How do you see your approach with "hasProvenance" [1] with named graphs when you consider more than one documents? Concretely, here is an example in the ASN, with aDoc1 and aDoc2. entity(aDoc1, [type=ex:Document]) entity(aDoc2, [type=ex:Document]) agent(meritoriousMeerkat) entity(meritoriousMeerkat, [foaf:name="Meritorious Meerkat"]) wasGeneratedBy(aDoc1, pe1, qualifier()) wasControlledBy(pe1,meritoriousMeerkat,qualifier=(role=dcterms:creator)) wasUsed(pe1, aDoc2, qualifier()) Would both aDoc1 and aDoc2 have their how provenance graphs? Cheers, Luc [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Exploring_provenance_model_complexity#Use_named_graph_for_provenance On 03/11/2011 12:39, Graham Klyne wrote: > In a previous email > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0228.html) > I indicated that I wanted to explore some simplified ways to express > provenance information that could still be related to the provenance > data model. > > I've now taken a first stab at such an exploration, which I've posted > in the working group wiki at > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Exploring_provenance_model_complexity > > Part of what I wish to explore is ways in which the provenance model > can be expressed in RDF, without necessarily having a 1:1 > correspondence between the data model terms and the RDF terms used. To > my mind, one of the main advantages of having a separate abstract > syntax is that it allows exploration opf alternative representations > while retaining the essential underlying structure. > > #g > -- >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 13:00:22 UTC