W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-prov@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Using named graphs to model PROV's Accounts

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:32:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4E9499BD.4060806@epimorphics.com>
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 


> Regards,
> Tim Lebo
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 19:32:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:07 UTC