- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:49:03 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:20 , Graham Klyne wrote: > James, > > Mainly, I wanted to say that it will be very helpful if a PROV Dataset is structurally and semantically aligned with a SPARQL/RDF 1.1 Dataset. (SPARQL defines no dataset semantics, but I understand the RDF 1.1 group have adopted the structure for "named graphs" in RDF, so will hopefully also define appropriate RDF semantics.) Graham: that is the point (alas!): the RDF group have not yet really adopted anything:-( And the 'appropriate RDF Semantics' is one of the stumbling blocks, in fact. Ivan > > From this email, I find the distinction between "instance" and "bundle" to be unclear. Also, when you say a "bundle" is not a "statement", what do you mean here by "statement" - I'm offline, can't check the source right now, so my apologies if this is covered in the document. [later] I see that was a typo, but I'm still left wondering what you mean by "not a statement" > > #g > -- > > On 09/08/2012 18:03, James Cheney wrote: >> OK. I have done a quick pass to use the term "PROV dataset" and changed all occurrences of "toplevel bundle" to "toplevel instance". I think it's a lot better this way! >> >> instance = named set of statements. (Excluding "bundle" constructs, which are not statements.) >> bundle = named set of statements ~= named graph of PROV-O (hopefully!) >> dataset = an instance and zero or more bundles (with distinct names). >> toplevel instance = the set of statements at the toplevel of a dataset >> >> Module typos/snags, does this look OK? If so I will close. >> >> Perhaps this terminology would be useful in other documents (Luc pointed out PROV-N uses "toplevel bundle" too...). >> >> --James >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: >> >>> Hello James, >>> >>> I strongly agree with the suggested general solution. I have no objection to "dataset" as a term. If you do still need to talk about bundles at all in PROV-Constraints, I think it should be made clear that the "toplevel" does not need to be named (does not need to be a bundle) to avoid confusion of concepts for different purposes. >>> >>> As said on the IRC, I don't think this is a blocking issue, just a matter of text clarification. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Simon >>> >>> Dr Simon Miles >>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics >>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK >>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >>> >>> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents: >>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/ >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: James Cheney [jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk] >>> Sent: 09 August 2012 17:21 >>> To: Provenance Working Group >>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints] >>> >>> We discussed this in the teleconference and it sounded like it would be appropriate to find better terminology for the following three things, which are currently not clearly distinguished: >>> >>> - "the whole PROV instance, including set of toplevel statements and bundles" >>> - "a particular set of statements, either the toplevel one or one within a bundle" >>> - bundle = "a named set of provenance statements" >>> >>> My initial proposal is "PROV dataset", "PROV instance", and "bundle". I believe "PROV dataset" is roughly analogous to what people call "dataset" in the context of SPARQL; if anyone knows different (or has objections or better suggestions), let me know. >>> >>> I'll send another message on this when this is ready for review. >>> >>> --James >>> >>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Simon Miles >>>> On product: prov-dm-constraints >>>> >>>> As requested, I'm submitting an issue where I feel a PROV-Constraints review comment of mine is not completely answered. >>>> >>>> My original comment: >>>>> Bundles >>>>> ------- >>>>> F. Section 6.1 seems a bit out of the blue. "The definitions >>>>> [etc.]... assume a PROV instance with exactly one bundle", and then >>>>> multiple bundles are handled as exactly the same number of >>>>> instances. Why? Why is there a connection between number of instances >>>>> and number of bundles? Why would a bundle be considered to be only one >>>>> instance? I thought a bundle was an identified set of statements, >>>>> allowing for provenance of provenance, which seems a distinct matter >>>>> from whether a set of statements are valid. It seems fine for a user >>>>> to treat one bundle as one instance if they want to, but there's no >>>>> reason given why this is the general case. >>>> >>>> Response from editors: >>>>> I am not sure I understand this comment. However, I have rewritten >>>>> slightly the intro of section 6.1. >>>>> >>>>> "The definitions, inferences, and constraints, and the resulting notions of normalization, validity and equivalence, assume a PROV instance that consists of exactly one bundle, the toplevel bundle, containing all PROV statements in the top level of the bundle (that is, not enclosed in a named bundle). In this section, we describe how to deal with PROV instances consisting of multiple named bundles. Briefly, each bundle is handled independently; there is no interaction between bundles from the perspective of applying definitions, inferences, or constraints, computing normal forms, or checking validity or equivalence." >>>> >>>> I agree this is clearer, but I don't feel it answers the key questions in my comment. To put my comment another way: you have explained checking validity where an instance consists of one bundle and of multiple bundles. The two other possibilities I see are: >>>> (a) A bundle containing multiple instances; >>>> (b) An instance that is a collection of PROV descriptions with no identifier and so is not a bundle, e.g. a provenance service query result. >>>> >>>> How do we deal with each of these cases? Or, if they cannot occur, why not? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >> >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:49:34 UTC