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

Re: Blog Post: 5 Simple Provenance Statements

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:35:07 +0000
Message-ID: <4EB2988B.8090504@ninebynine.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

There are possible choices here - probably not a single correct response.

I would consider the option that the different entities can be associated with 
provenance graphs (using separate hasProvenance statements), but that such 
statements might refer to the *same* graph.  Thus, a single provenance graph - 
maybe for a single overall workflow execution - could be constructed then 
associated with each of the artifacts generated by that execution.

Or each entity could have a minimal graph dealing with just the details 
pertaining to the provenance of that entity.

I'd like to see some implementation leeway here, as long as there's no 
possibility for mis-interpretation of the resulting provenance.

(It also relates to the possible advantage I hinted at in relation to the 
duplication of the entity URI - the provenance graph is able to include 
additional information that may not be specifically about the original entity.)


On 03/11/2011 12:56, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 14:14:28 UTC

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