Re: [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations?

Hi Graham and Paul,

There are many REST services out there that only support json and/or xml.
It would be nice if those services could support PROV, but we are 
setting an extra-hurdle
for those service providers if recommend publication of provenance in RDF.

I believe that at this stage of take up we should lower the barrier of 
adoption for providers.
I would therefore relax the requirements as follows (essentially refer 
to PROV instead of PROV-O)

[[The mechanisms described in this note are independent of the 
provenance format
used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For
interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in a
format defined by the Provenance Working Group is recommended. Where 
alternative formats are available,
selection may be made by content negotiation.
]]

Luc

On 11/03/13 12:43, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Thanks for this. I think this is a good way to go. I would suggest a 
> modified version of your proposal.
>
> [[The mechanisms described in this note are independent of the 
> provenance format
> used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For
> interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a
> standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are 
> available,
> selection may be made by content negotiation.
> ]]
> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-aq-20130312/#introduction
>
> A key question is whether we want to make this recommendation around 
> PROV-O.... One thing I really like about the PAQ is that it's 
> agnostic. We really separate concerns. Adding a recommendation for 
> PROV-O may muddle that message. On the other hand, it does push 
> towards better interoperable.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Graham Klyne 
> <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk <mailto:Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428
>
>     "We mention the rdf mimetype should we mention the other mimetypes
>     in section 4.1?"
>
>     This has been a somewhat contentious issue, with differing views
>     expressed
>     within the WG, so I've called it out for explicit discussion.
>
>     The current revision of PROV-AQ is quite agnostic w.r.t.
>     provenance formats used
>     (and even allows for non-PROV provenance), but it does suggest
>     that publishers
>     use PROV-O-in-RDF for interoperability:
>
>     [[
>     Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the
>     provenance format
>     used, and may be used to access provenance in any available
>     format. For
>     interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a
>     standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats
>     are available,
>     selection may be made by content negotiation.
>     ]]
>     -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-aq-20130312/#introduction
>
>     The specific text mentioned in the originally raised issue has
>     been removed, but
>     the question remains about what provenance formats to specify, if any.
>
>
>     PROPOSE: to accept the the above text.
>
>
>     ...
>
>     My thoughts:
>
>     I think this is probably as close as we can get to addressing the
>     conflicting
>     requirements expressed:
>     - that developers are free to adopt any format that suits their
>     purpose, and
>     - some common format requirements are needed for interoperable
>     implementations
>
>     I suggest that it's OK to leave the interoperability issue
>     incompletely resolved
>     at this time, as this is just a NOTE and we don't yet have much
>     real experience
>     with widespread provenance deployment.
>
>     In my perception, the indications are that the majority of
>     developers interested
>     in using provenance data will do so in conjunction with Linked
>     Open Data, so a
>     guiding nudge in this direction seems appropriate to do, without
>     attempting to
>     predict what will become the preferred application style and
>     format for
>     achieving interoperability.
>
>     #g
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam

-- 
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