Re: RDF WG responses

Looking at:
[[
Sandro Hawke: They think as static Boxes - distinction doesn't matter. ←

... What they do in their examples is make it a Web page - technically mutable, 
but "don't change it". GBox. ←

... Don't think the GBox/Gsnap distinction matters in Provenance context. They 
are thinking about as immutable. ←

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to "they're thinkg of it as immutable" ←
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17

Broadly, I'd agree with these comments, but I'd also note that ideal ("strict") 
provenance contains immutable assertions about resources that may be mutable.

(In the provenance model, Entities and specializationOf provide some mechanisms 
to bridge between the mutable and immutable elements.  I can see some 
possibilities that some of the proposals for dataset semantics could also 
provide some mechanisms to bridge between "scruffy" and "strict" provenance.)

#g
--


On 18/10/2012 15:37, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Guys,
>
> although the official answer/comment from the RDF WG still has to reach our mailboxes, there was a telco yesterday when the essential resolution has been approved by the RDF WG:
>
> [[[
> RESOLVED: We reply to the Prov WG that we don't see any technical incompatibilities between their work and RDF 1 or RDF 1.1 as we currently imagine it.  If a suitable example is eventually included in our docs, we will try to use PROV output therein. ←
> ]]]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17#resolution_1
>
> There were some discussions (see the minutes) beforehand that you may want to have a look at (I was not at that telco yesterday...) but the formal part of the response is clear. We may want to discuss, at some point, whether this has any effect on our work in this WG.
>
> Ivan
>
> ----
> 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 Sunday, 21 October 2012 12:50:50 UTC