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

Re: Using named graphs to model PROV's Accounts

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:17:59 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
Message-Id: <A8C72566-044F-4BCE-84F2-BC52E0BF6B08@rpi.edu>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

>>> Absolutely. The problem that I'm trying to highlight is that traditional named graph modeling (from what I have seen) has been "lazy" in the choice of URIs used to name them, inadequately assuming a local scope when referencing them. This laziness _is_ violating the AWWW's only-one-referrent principle.
> We agree then that inappropriate naming is a problem.  I think that the inappropriateness is as much whether the naming is "fit for purpose" (application purpose).  Reuse of information by someone else may be stretching or breaking the original purpose - result: bad naming.  The original naming scheme miay well have been adequate for the original publisher.
> I tried to describe how an application that really wants to track changes might go about naming of the significant concepts: it does not rely on the publisher doing anything (Sandro has written up the version where the publisher publishes in a way that makes the state at a particular time explicit):
> The write-up was rather rushed I'm afraid:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0148.html

Great! Thanks for the pointer. I'll dig through it.

> (There is no new idea in the description - it's entirely other people's ideas written up badly)
> To compare to N3: log:includes is the relationship of a location and its contents.  It's at a point in time, when the application rules run.  To capture the possibility of observations at different times, each observation generates a URI and makes claims about the observation.

Very useful. Thanks.

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 11:18:42 UTC

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