- From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:40:20 -0700
- To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> > This is because "provenance" isn't well-defined for me. > > Yes; as I said, it's very overloaded. But, contra what you say below, > there are lots of core use cases where *who* made assertion A is as > important as the content of assertion A. When they made it and in what > context -- say, in which web resource identified by a URI -- are > equally crucial. Many of our use cases involving the Intelligence > Community are *very* provenance-centric apps. > > I don't know how or whether to really build support for this use case > into the design of the query language and/or protocol; I do know, > however, that this is a *common* use case (consider, for example, > writing an RDF spider where the original source of the assertion is > vital...) > > > I see an RDF > > repository as an RDF repository; I thought the whole point > of RDF was > > that it made absolutely no difference who said something or > where that > > information was stored so long as somebody said it somewhere, > > Hmm, no, with all due respect, Rob, I think that's wrong. :> I think we're using "RDF" to refer to different things here. I recognize that provenance can be very useful in many RDF applications, but I don't see provenence within the RDF spec. If it is actually realized as triples (and there are ways to do that with provenance information), then it's RDF, but if it's meta-information sitting outside the RDF data model then I think it's somewhat out of scope. I'm glad we've finally gotten down the list to talk about some of these objectives that have never really been addressed.
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 21:42:12 UTC