- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:28:43 +0200
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I think I forgot my periods. It should be <> a prov:Bundle; prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime; prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob. my:report1 a my:Report, prov:Entity. So there are no quads. The <> refers to the document (or base url). So maybe for all clarity we should ensure that the base url is clearly a document eg. http://www.example.com/example.ttl What your doing is just saying that the current document is a bundle. cheers Paul On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote: > 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 > > -- -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:29:14 UTC