- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:15:58 -0400
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/05/2012 11:24 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>
>
> Le 05/10/2012 16:50, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, only with the exception that we are defining the syntax for
> datasets, which they'll have to align their documents with, if only
> they choose to rely on this concept.
>
> So we can tell them that they can use it for the syntactic structure,
> and put a reference to us for this, but they indeed are on their own
> wrt how to interpret the structure.
>
In Prov, are bundles g-snaps? (It looks like it to me, from a cursory
reading.) So the weakness here is that we haven't provided them any
way to name g-snaps?
I imagine the use cases include naming them without using TriG (or N3),
so that suggests the only viable solution is static g-boxes -- that is,
Web Pages of RDF that promise not to change.
I can't quite decide if, engineering-wise, that's brilliant or
ridiculous. As an software developer, I'd probably like some stronger
guarantees, such as a hash, or the contents of the bundles being
transmitted in the same document as the assertions about them. The
easy solution would be a convention for including the hash of the
contents in the URL. Standards-wise, I guess that looks something like
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 (although I'd
approach it rather differently, myself).
-- Sandro
> -AZ
>
>>
>> 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 Wednesday, 10 October 2012 13:16:07 UTC