- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:57:17 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|d8c88c83cea6b9e5f4dafd88ce1125c1o98EvH08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50742D3D>
Thanks Simon, I added your suggestion. Luc On 10/09/2012 02:40 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: > Sorry, clicked Send prematurely. I was going to say: > I think the response is good in being precise, but perhaps we could > add an introductory intuitive statement directly answering the > question? For example: > No, PROV by itself does not require IDs to be unique in a bundle, but > you may have to ensure this in order to perform certain operations on > the PROV data or to meet other best practice. > thanks, > Simon > Dr Simon Miles > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 > Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions: > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Miles, Simon > *Sent:* 09 October 2012 14:38 > *To:* public-prov-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on > insertion, context [prov-dm] > > Hello Luc, > I think the response is good in being precise, but perhaps we could > add an intuitive statement > 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? > Dr Simon Miles > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 > Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions: > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > *Sent:* 09 October 2012 13:24 > *To:* Graham Klyne; Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-482: [external question] bundle IDs on > insertion, context [prov-dm] > > 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§ion=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 Kingdomhttp://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 13:57:52 UTC