W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Blog Post: 5 Simple Provenance Statements

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:56:39 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|df2ae77035b82d85391363a1069b34b4nA2Cug08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB28F87.6070906@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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])
entity(meritoriousMeerkat, [foaf:name="Meritorious Meerkat"])
wasGeneratedBy(aDoc1, pe1, qualifier())
wasUsed(pe1, aDoc2, qualifier())

Would both aDoc1 and aDoc2 have their how provenance graphs?



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:03 UTC