Re: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context [prov-dm] from Luc Moreau on 2012-10-09 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from October 2012)

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:24:23 +0100
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a7ef7b58df7f7b26a368883a1cb7894ao98DON08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50741777>
Dear all,

I would like to bring this issue to a close.  I have drafted a response, 
available
from
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-482_.28Bundles_and_IDs.29
and copied below.

Comments welcome.
Luc



>       ISSUE-482 (Bundles and IDs)
>
>   * Original
>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0004.html
>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482
>   * Group Response:
>       o PROV specifications define a notion of bundle, but do not
>         define operations on bundles such as merge. The definition of
>         such operations is left to implementations.
>       o The prov-constraints document defines a notion of validity in
>         the presence of bundles. Validity is determined by checking
>         validity of bundles, individually, irrespective of other
>         existing bundles. For instance, the following document,
>         containing two bundles is valid.
>
> document
>   prefix ex <http://example.org/>
>   bundle ex:b1
>      entity(ex:e1)
>   endBundle
>
>   bundle ex:b2
>      activity(ex:e1)
>   endBundle
> endDocument
>
>  *
>       o Other specifications may provide some guidance regarding this
>         issue. For instance, the Architecture of the World Wide Web,
>         Volume One, provides principles, constraints, and good
>         practice notes about the use of IRIs.
>
>   * References:
>       o PROV validity and
>         bundles:http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#bundle-constraints
>       o Web Architecture and
>         URIs:http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources
>   * Changes to the document: none
>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>
>
>     [edit
>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=40>]
>





On 09/06/2012 01:55 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 12:55, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>
>> I agree that the use of trig may cause confusion. I however think we
>> can show bundles in rdf just using the concept of a data file to
>> illustrate bundles so we would remove any cause for confusion.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> This whole use of bundles is (potentially) pushing the boundaries of 
> what RDF is currently defined to handle.
>
> We can do as you suggest, but do we assume the graphs are merged or 
> kept separately?  If separate, I don't think RDF says anything that 
> constrains the interpretations used for un-merged RDF graphs.  If we 
> assume they are, or can be, merged then what you said before about 
> denoting same resource applies.
>
> (If RDF Datasets were not on the horizon, I'd probably just be 
> agreeing with you.)
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>>
>> cheers
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Graham 
>> Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2012 17:37, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> Luc,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is inherited. Once you start using URIs you are
>>>> bound to their semantics which means they denote the same resource.
>>>> Furthermore, I think it would be weird for us to say anything about it
>>>> as it's treading on other specs turf.
>>>
>>> With RDF as it stands, I agree.  And I agree about not treading on 
>>> other
>>> specifications' turf.
>>>
>>> But an option that I don't think is entirely resolved is how bundles 
>>> are
>>> represented in RDF:  as I recall, some of the examples in the 
>>> ontology document
>>> use TRiG notation for bundles, which goes beyond current RDF but 
>>> which *might*
>>> correspond to datasets in the forthcoming version of RDF.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any consensus on semantics for 
>>> datasets ... but
>>> it is conceivable that URIs in named graphs within a Dataset won't be
>>> constrained to use the same (model theoretic) interpretation (via 
>>> which the
>>> denotation is obtained) as the default graph or other named graphs.  
>>> In which
>>> case the assumption of inheritance may be off.  All this is 
>>> speculation, but I'm
>>> bothered that we get to this stage without a clear steer from the RDF
>>> Datasets/named graph situation.
>>>
>>> Which I suppose may be why the provenance specs are currently silent 
>>> on the
>>> issue of how ids in different bundles are related.
>>>
>>> #g
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Luc 
>>>> Moreau<l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>   wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to establish whether this question requires 
>>>>> clarifications in
>>>>> our documents or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which IDs are we referring to here? Bundle IDs or IDs of 
>>>>> entities/agents/etc
>>>>> asserted in bundles?
>>>>> I assume it's entity/agent/etc IDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that both prov-dm and prov-constraints are silent about 
>>>>> how to
>>>>> interpret a given identifier
>>>>> used in two different bundles.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, we can write:
>>>>>
>>>>> bundle b1
>>>>>     entity(id)
>>>>> endBundle
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> bundle b2
>>>>>      activity(id)
>>>>> endBundle
>>>>>
>>>>> This is valid provenance (according to prov-constraints). It is 
>>>>> not required
>>>>> explicitly by prov-dm/prov-constraints
>>>>> that the identifier/uri id denotes the same resource in both 
>>>>> bundles.  But
>>>>> isn't this a principle automatically
>>>>> "inherited" from the Web architecture?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/08/12 20:27, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracker, this is the original email from satra:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+A4wO=MwhCCMfaaRJwpBsfN6JCCOh_AhAkANxuP7wUhNNamFg@mail.gmail.com 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue 
>>>>> Tracker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context
>>>>> [prov-dm]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 12:25:05 UTC