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

Hi Paul and Ivan,
Thanks for the responses!


> I would suggest the following for modifying the example:
>
> ## A provenance file located a http://example.com/provbundle1
>
> @base:     <http://example.com/provbundle1> .
> @prefix my:      <http://example.com/my#> .
> @prefix prov:    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
>
> <>  a prov:Bundle;
>    prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
>    prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob;
>
> my:report1
>  a my:Report, prov:Entity;
>

I may be missing something, but I interpret the above example as:
1. <> my:report1 a my:Report . and <> my:report1 a prov:Entity. - are quads
instead of triples?

Did you mean to have an explicit predicate linking statements (reports) to
the bundle

<bundle1>
   a prov:Bundle ;
   <contains> my:report1, my:report2 ;
   prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime .

with rest of the statements from your example following?

("contains" being a locally defined predicate.)

or both bundle1 and report1 to be bundles? - in that case both would be
same as any other entity?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


>  my:version "1";
>  prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:00:01"^^xsd:dateTime;
>  .
>

If you want to get really fancy, you can switch the bases in the
> middle of the example to talk about multiple files (i.e. bundles).
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>