- 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