- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:09:43 +0100
- To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Tracker, this is PROV-ISSUE-482 On 20/08/2012 20:14, Jim McCusker wrote: > If a bundle uses a URI for the ID, then if they use the same URI they are > talking about the same thing. While I tend to agree, I think that, as far as the current specifications go, this is an assumption rather than stated fact. To resolve this, I think we need to consider how this plays out in representation as RDF (via PROV-O). Currently, the PROV-O rendering of a bundle in RDF is described using TRiG syntax that is not representable directly in the current RDF specification. While we anticipate that it will be expressible using the new RDF specifications currently being worked upon, it's not yet clear how the semantics of those specifications will play out. I'd suggest that the strongest recommendation we can make at this time is something like this: [[ When provenance information is spread across a number of bundles, the same URI SHOULD NOT be used in different bundles to denote different entities, agents or activities. Applications that consume multiple bundles MAY assume that the same URI used in different bundles denotes the same entity, agent or activity. ]] I think this should be stated explicitly somewhere (PROV-DM and PROV-O) (Note this does not say anything about URIs that do not denote entities, agents or activities. In particular, I'd anticipate that the interpretation of RDF properties might differ across bundles, but that's just a hunch at this stage.) I think we also need to (re)engage with the RDF working group with regard to semantics of RDF Datasets. We want to be confident that provenance that is expressed in multiple bundles across data dataset is capable of being interpreted in the way we expect without violating the RDF semantics (but not necessarily expecting the RDF to provide all the required semantics, as long as there is some way to introduce new provenance-specific semantics). Notes: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-identifier http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Bundle http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/TriG/ http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-dataset >... If they are using something else, make a > namespace prefix for the bundle (I prefer to do it based on a content > digest of the document the bundle is in) and use that prefix to qualify the > IDs. That's a possible technique, but not necessarily something we should recommend. #g -- > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Satrajit Ghosh<satra@mit.edu> wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> if one were implementing a database storing prov bundles, would we have to >> ensure that IDs don't clash in the database insertion code? or is the >> understanding that IDs are only meant to be unique within a given bundle >> context? >> >> cheers, >> >> satra >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:11:39 UTC