Re: PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]

On 11 Sep 2012, at 02:53, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am following up on this issue for prov-o.
> 
> I looked up the turtle WD http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ and could not find an appropriate construct for representing a prov bundle. Trig seems to be only way to represent a RDF named graph, unless we want to use a blank node for a bundle (http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#unlabeled-bnodes)? The RDF WG also seems to be still discussing the issue (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdf11-concepts-20120605/#section-dataset).
> 
> Hence, do we resolve this issue by referring to Trig explicitly in the prov-o document (for now)?
> 

I think the idea was *not* to refer TriG explicitly and, as Paul suggests, use different (Turtle) documents for the bundles for now. TriG is especially problematic as a reference: there are references that the community uses here and there and which do not even exist any more:-(

That being said, the RDF WG may be in a better shape than we look to the outside, and it is not impossible that a TriG document will be published before the end of the year. Ie, we may make the editorial change of using TriG later in the process (the examples are non normative anyway). We should go for the safe option in my view, which is Paul's proposal in my view.

Thanks

Ivan




> Thanks.
> 
> Best,
> Satya
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> If we can do that, it would certainly be fool proof for now...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:56 , Paul Groth wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> >
> > For this issue, I wonder if the best approach would be to give
> > examples of bundles that don't use trig. Then, we would be turtle
> > compatible and wouldn't have confusion when whatever extended syntax
> > comes out.
> >
> > We can just show it as two separate documents.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 14, 2012, at 20:21 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >>
> >>> PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
> >>>
> >>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> >>> On product: Ontology
> >>>
> >>> The syntax used in the examples should be mentioned (it is TriG http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/trig/).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Per Graham in email http://www.w3.org/mid/5023A271.90500@ninebynine.org :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/
> >>>
> >>> (Currently, I'm posing this as a question I need to understand order to reason coherently about aspects of provenance expressed in RDF, but I may also raise it as a formal issue.)
> >>>
> >>> I can't see a specification or citation for the syntax used for examples in PROV-O.
> >>>
> >>> This may seem like a trivial point, but I think it's a serious omission.  In particular, I'm trying to interpret how the mentionOf and bundle structure plays out when represented in RDF and, while I can make guesses, that's not a sound basis for interpretation.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the examples appear to conform with Turtle (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/), but there are some (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle) that do not.
> >>
> >> As I put in one of my earlier comments, it is probably wise to refer to the current RDF WG Working Draft, too, in the references:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
> >>
> >> Turtle is currently in Last Call. It may not win the race and become a Rec before Prov does, but citing it at least as a work in progress makes a lot of sense. (And, who knows, Turtle might become Rec earlier.)
> >>
> >> The TriG stuff is clearly not yet there and therefore the ...#Bundle is indeed illegal syntax.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Because such examples given go beyond the current structure expressible as an RDF graph, I think some explanation should be provided about how these should be interpreted as RDF.  (E.g. "<id> { <turtle expression> }" could be presented as an RDF document on the web at URI "<id>".  If this reflects what is intended, then I think some further comment is needed about when it is valid to merge these graphs, or what kinds of cross-bundle inferences are possible, because the PROV-O ontology alone can't express any of that.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not sure it is worth going down that route. For those one or two examples I think, for the time being, referring to TriG should be fine. I cannot predict whether the RDF WG may come up with a syntax in time; I would not bet on it...
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> (Most of this "processing model" concern goes away if we drop mentionOf.  But in order to understand how mentionOf plays out in the RDF representation of provenance, as described by the OWL ontology, I need to understand these details.)
> >>>
> >>> #g
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> > Assistant Professor
> > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
> >  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> > - The Network Institute
> > VU University Amsterdam
> 
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>