W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2013

nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs?

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:53:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoRhnG5sd63T-BXJugWZ3d_2eaZLXp3n78A+QJc6YaQ+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi All,

I was reviewing the Trig spec. We use trig to express nanopublications -
light weight forms of provenance attached to graphs. Each nanopublication
has three graphs associated with it:

- an assertion graph
- a publication info graph
- a provenance graph

The provenance graph points to the the assertion graph.

GRAPH :assert { ... }
GRAPH :provenance { :assert prov:wasDerivedFrom :xyz . }

Is this ok with what's coming out?

I ask because we have a ton of post translational modifications and protein
isoforms modeled like this [1]/


[1] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj461.pdf

Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2013 18:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:36 UTC