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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-145 (Tlebo): qualified identifiers may not work well with named graphs [Data Model]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:01:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBBD945.10100@ninebynine.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I agree with the objection; specifically to the creation of structured 
identifiers within the DM.

But I don't think saying that all identifiers MUST be URIs is necessary.

If the DM simply says that some identifiers are scoped to a DM structure (such 
as accounts),without saying what form they take, then the representation in RDF 
can allocate blank nodes or UUIDs to reflect the scoping rules.

#g
--

On 06/11/2011 01:35, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-145 (Tlebo): qualified identifiers may not work well with named graphs [Data Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/145
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Data Model
>
> There is a note in prov-dm:
>
> "We are going to introduce a notion of qualified identifier, which allows us to refer to an identifier in the scope of a given account. Given that accounts may be nested, a qualifier identifier will be prefixed by a sequence of account identifiers, and then followed by an identifier, local to the innermost account."
>
> This non-global scoping mechanism will prevent the many nice uses of out-of-the-box named graphs, and instead require an entire extra level of implementation that is not currently supported in triple stores.
>
> I propose that we require the asserters to define appropriately-scoped URIs for their identifiers. Letting them be lazy up front will cause headaches when actually trying to use it.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:16:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC