- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:17:55 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|cb559fcd3bc700b168ac023da4774fb1p1BIJF08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|511A8753>
Hi Tim, This would be your way of tackling the problem, but it's not a way that any PROV document has specified. That's why, from my point of view, this solution is not interoperable. It is valid PROV-O, I agree, but without equivalent in the data model, since in this example, the derivation refers to a usage, and PROV mandates the presence of an identifier. Luc On 12/02/13 18:08, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I don't know of a way to translate this rdf in an interoperable way > > > (As I've said) I do; you mint an identifier. > > >> since we have not specified this in our specs. >> >> It's for that reason I thought this example should be changed. > > (are we still talking about > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/5495d990f17b/testcases/provo/prov-o-property-hadUsage-PASS.ttl ?) > > But, it's valid PROV-O. Why should it be changed? > There's nothing special about the blank node other than it doesn't > have a URI. > It's still a legitimate resource. And any URI that you choose to > identify that resource will do. > > Are you still suggesting that this example change? > > -Tim > > >> >> Luc >> >> On 02/12/2013 03:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> >>>> If we do, and convert back to rdf, we don't have an equivalent rdf >>>> representation. >>> Yes, you would :-) >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>> University of Southampton >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>> United Kingdom >>>> >>>> On 12 Feb 2013, at 15:00, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu >>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dm/XML/prov-n require an explicit identifier which we don't have >>>>>> in this example. >>>>> Why not make one up? >>>>> >>>>> -TIm >>>>> >>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>>>> University of Southampton >>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>>>> United Kingdom >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:54, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu >>>>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Luc, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Luc Moreau >>>>>>> <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The prov-o document has several examples with blank nodes. >>>>>>>>>> Some of them are difficult >>>>>>>>>> to express in prov-n/prov-xml. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Consider: >>>>>>>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/5495d990f17b/testcases/provo/prov-o-property-hadUsage-PASS.ttl >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The usage has no identifier we can use in the derivation. >>>>>>>>> Any identifier will do; you may choose a new one for each >>>>>>>>> bnode you find. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Should we keep examples of this kind in the specification or >>>>>>>>>> should we introduce an explicit >>>>>>>>>> identifier for usage here? >>>>>>>>> We are using blank nodes to help the reader focus on the >>>>>>>>> structure of the PROV-O pattern. >>>>>>>>> I think this is appropriate for the audience of PROV-O. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps it's just a matter of knowing how to handle bnodes >>>>>>>>> when mapping to other serializations? >>>>>>>> We don't specify that. So, we don't how express that example >>>>>>>> in prov-xml/prov-n. >>>>>>> In XML, it'd be an element with no @id attribute (since, that's >>>>>>> exactly what a blank node is). >>>>>>> I haven't written any translators to XML or N, so I guess I >>>>>>> don't understand the problem clearly enough. >>>>>>> What is difficult about "filling something in" if it's not there? >>>>>>> This is exactly the correct interpretation of a bnode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> >> -- >> 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 >> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> >> >> >> > -- 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, 12 February 2013 18:19:44 UTC