- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:54:00 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
See: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#provenance-services and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#provenance-service-format-examples I've only put placeholders for the XML examples so far. #g -- On 26/08/2011 09:42, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Graham, > I am happy with your suggestion. > Luc > > On 26/08/11 08:18, Graham Klyne wrote: >> >> >> On 26/08/2011 00:05, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> Hi Graham, >>> >>> Responses interleaved. >>> >>> On 25/08/11 14:03, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> On 22/08/2011 23:15, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and >>>>> not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/76 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance >>>>> >>>>> Given that the examples of section 4 are already expressed in RDF turtle, is >>>>> there any value in also expressing them in RDF/XML? >>> >>> Since you seem to target the rdf community, i confirm i see no point in having >>> both rdf turtle and rdf/xml. >> >> (It's not just me targeting the RDF community. So does the WG charter.) >> >> The rationale for including both formats is that Turtle is what many RDF >> developers are most comfortable using, but RDF/XML is (for now at least) the >> official recommended interchange format for RDF. Personally, I wouldn't mind a >> spec that only mentioned Turtle, but when I've had such discussions in the >> past in standards groups, there has been a strong desire to also include >> example using the standard RDF/XML format. >> >>>>> If we want some take up by the XML community, we should have proper XML >>>>> examples, with corresponding XML schemas. >>>> >>>> I don't see sufficient value in this, given the provenance aware applications >>>> are likely to deal with RDF anyway (per charter), and the JSON option provides >>>> ease of use. If it's really needed, I'd suggest making an XML format for >>>> provenance discovery service description part of D5 deliverable. >>> >>> D5 deliverable is about the model, not the PAQ. >> >> Yes, but it also targets XML developers. >> >> Reflecting on this, I am inclined to *reduce* the examples given in the text >> to only JSON, then add any other examples, including XML, in an appendix. >> >> #g >> -- >
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 13:56:07 UTC