- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:50:25 -0500
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Oct 5, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > The way you are talking about our recent vote seems to imply that we have constrained the PROV WG in a way that prevent them No, of course not. We have not constrained anyone to do anything. But we have also not *provided* them with any means to help them do what they want to do. We have done nothing: they are on their own. Their situation regarding RDF usage is exactly what it would have been if this WG had never convened. They can completely ignore us, as we have decided to say nothing useful. That is what I propose to tell them. Pat > from using named graphs and RDF datasets for their bundle. But it's quite the opposite: we have voted for the absence of constraints! > > So they can use the RDF dataset data structure the way they want. They simply have to be warned that they should not assume any particular meaning for a dataset. Therefore, if they want to use this for bundles, they'll have to completely describe all the constraints they require when defining a provenance dataset. Whatever constraints they define will be consistent with the RDF specs, since our set of constraints regarding datasets is empty. > > So, I'd have no problem telling them to go ahead and use datasets, and be specific in what it means in the context of provenance data. > > --AZ > > Le 05/10/2012 05:40, Pat Hayes a écrit : >> >> On Oct 4, 2012, at 3:24 PM, David Wood wrote: >> >>> Hi Pat, >>> >>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 15:55, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>> >>>> David, greetings. >>>> >>>> I have been waiting for the WG to make a decision about datasets >>>> and named graphs before getting back to the PROV group, as this >>>> is the most relevant to their 'bundle' feature. As far as I can >>>> see, our recent decision to gove no semantics to datasets means >>>> that we contribute nothing to this, and the PROV group are on >>>> their own to invent their own graph naming construct and give it >>>> the semantics they want, independently from the output of this >>>> WG. >>>> >>>> Do you concur? >>> >>> Hmm. A bundle is "a named set of descriptions, but it is also an >>> entity so that its provenance can be described." [1] A SPARQL >>> dataset "represents a collection of graphs" and "comprises one >>> graph, the default graph, which does not have a name, and zero or >>> more named graphs, where each named graph is identified by an IRI." >>> [2] >>> >>> There is clearly overlap there, but I don't think the overlap is >>> anywhere near complete. It doesn't appear that the WG is willing >>> to equate a "named set of descriptions" with a "collection of >>> graphs" nor to presuppose some way to then give the dataset a name >>> via an IRI. >> >> Right. And it seems to me that it is the second part that really >> matters. In their original request for comment they particularly >> mentioned named graphs as a topic of interest in connection with >> bundles, and I took them to be interested in the possibility that >> named graphs could be used to construct bundles or implement them in >> RDF in a natural way. I think, now, the only possible answer is, no. >> >>> So, it appears to me that we have problems with the PROV-DM >>> document's definition of a Bundle from at least two perspectives: >>> We don't have semantics for datasets, nor do we have a syntax that >>> we could equate to a bundle. >> >> I don't think they were expecting to find a ready-made bundle in RDF, >> but there is now nothing in RDF which would even be of utility or >> help in creating bundles, AFAIKS. They will have to define their own >> extension to RDF and give it a purpose-built semantics of their own. >> >> Pat >> >> >>> TriG (as currently conceptualized) could provide a syntax for a >>> bundle iff we decide to adopt some way to name the package itself >>> (as some extant systems do, by assigning an IRI upon ingest). I >>> think both of those rather unlikely at this time, although I don't >>> think implementors will cease doing so (because it is useful). >>> >>> Of course, I could be wrong since my reading is still incomplete. >>> >>> Regards, Dave >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-bundle-entity [2] >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Pat >>>> >>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:33 PM, David Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Paul. We'll get back to you shortly, hopefully prior >>>>> to your 10 Oct deadline. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 14:52, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dave, >>>>>> >>>>>> We had specific questions about PROV-DM and PROV-O that we >>>>>> are keen on getting answered. >>>>>> >>>>>> From the email to the RDF WG chains on July 24, 2012: >>>>>> >>>>>> "We particularly wanted to call your attention to the Bundle >>>>>> feature [5]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions we have are: - We are hopeful that the notion of >>>>>> Bundle should map to the notion of graph you are defining. >>>>>> Can you look into this? - In particular, with respect to >>>>>> Bundle do you see the construct Mention[6] as compatible with >>>>>> RDF now and going forward - PROV-DM is dependent on rdf >>>>>> types[7]. Do you envisage any further changes in the rdf data >>>>>> types? >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, any feedback on the PROV-Ontology document is >>>>>> greatly appreciated." >>>>>> >>>>>> Similarly, in prov-constraints we wondered about Bundle and >>>>>> specifically terminology of Document and Bundle work with >>>>>> terms you will use in RDF. For example, I have heard that the >>>>>> term dataset will be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are keen on getting feedback as soon as possible so that >>>>>> are CR document is in-line with what is forthcoming in RDF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM, David >>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The RDF WG has discussed your questions below and we have >>>>>>> decided that it is rather difficult for us to be sure that >>>>>>> we are responding in the way you wish. As you undoubtedly >>>>>>> know, the provenance docs are getting rather large and the >>>>>>> constraints doc does not stand alone for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you able to formulate more targeted questions for us to >>>>>>> consider? For example, are you concerned that a particular >>>>>>> feature of PROV Constraints relies upon RDF semantics, or a >>>>>>> particular interpretation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any more detailed guidance would help our reviewers >>>>>>> greatly. Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, Dave -- David Wood, Ph.D. 3 Round Stones >>>>>>> http://3roundstones.com Cell: +1 540 538 9137 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:29, David >>>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. We acknowledge your request and have it on >>>>>>>> our agenda [1] for Wednesday. We will advise our >>>>>>>> reviewers to send comments to your comments list [2]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.19#Provenance_Constraints_Review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > [2] mailto:public-prov-comments@w3.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:07, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Guus, David, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you've seen, we just published last call of >>>>>>>>> Constraints of the PROV Data Model [1]. We are >>>>>>>>> interested in the RDF WG feedback on this document. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Questions we have are: - Does the terminology, Bundle >>>>>>>>> and Document work with the terminology in the RDF WG? - >>>>>>>>> With respect to Bundle and Document do the defined >>>>>>>>> constraints work with what is potentially being >>>>>>>>> specified in RDF? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are looking forward to your feedback on this >>>>>>>>> document and also the other last call documents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time, Paul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - >>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group | Artificial >>>>>>>>> Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science - >>>>>>>>> The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - Knowledge >>>>>> Representation& Reasoning Group | Artificial Intelligence >>>>>> Section | Department of Computer Science - The Network >>>>>> Institute VU University Amsterdam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC >>>> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. >>>> (850)202 4416 office Pensacola >>>> (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 >>>> (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us >>>> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC >> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. >> (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 >> 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 >> mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Antoine Zimmermann > ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol > École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne > 158 cours Fauriel > 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 > France > Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 > Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 > http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 14:51:05 UTC