Re: Using named graphs to model PROV's Accounts

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 20:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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.


I might be confused, but it looks to me like Tim is making the best of a
bad situation: he's trying to use the "name" in a name-graph pair to
identify a graph/gbox, but he's recognizing that [ because we haven't
adopted my Web Semantics for Datasets proposal :-) ] the scope of that
binding is only a single dataset.  He's calling the dataset identifier
the "location".     At least that's how I'm reading it.

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 20:43:28 UTC