- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:32:13 +0100
- To: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
On 11/10/11 19:11, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> rdf-prov,
>
> In preparation for the RDF WG F2F this week, I wanted to provide some discussion on using named graphs to address some provenance modeling.
>
> I have updated http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts to reflect some feedback and extend the discussion on named graphs.
>
> In particular, I discuss:
>
> * reuse of the SPARQL Service Description vocabulary to describe named graphs.
> * Meta Named Graph pairs,
> * a simple application of these to create Cache Graphs
> * the importance of modeling the "location" of a graph to disambiguate many graphs with the same name.
>
> These components are needed to model PROV's notion of Accounts, which permit different agents to assert different views of the same "event" (i.e., ProcessExecution). I hope to wrap up all of this into a final proposal by the end of the week.
>
> Any suggestions or comments appreciated.
As a principle (of AWWW), one name can only refer to one thing.
"graph" here seems to refer to graph-a-location but also "graph the
contents of the location". But those are different things.
The RDF-WG has the concept of "graph box" (g-box) which is a thing that
hold on "graph-value" (g-snap - snapshot).
In RDF a graph is a set of triples and as a set it can not change.
("Set" as in the mathematical kind, not the programming language mutable
datastructure).
Andy
>
> Regards,
> Tim Lebo
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 19:32:55 UTC