- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:02:56 -0400
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/10/2012 09:48 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Le 10/10/2012 15:15, Sandro Hawke a écrit : >> 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? > > Strictly speaking, no, since PROV-DM defines its own data model which > is not based on RDF. But the data model maps very well with datasets: > a PROV document is made of: > - a "toplevel instance" consisting of a set of PROV statements, > - and zero or more "named instances" called bundles. > > PROV statements look like n-ary relation, but we know that they can be > expressed with a set of triples. So, as far as the syntactic structure > is concerned, yes it fits very well the dataset structure. > > > (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? > > No, the weakness is that we haven't indicated any relationship between > the "graph IRI" and the content, nor any meaning for <n,g> pairs, nor > any relationship between what the "unnamed graph" says and what the > "named graphs" say. But they could define their own understanding of > what's a dataset, as long as it is clearly stated in their specs. > > >> 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 think TriG works too, even better. > > >> 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). > > But I think TriG does work here, as a syntax, so there may not be any > need for such a thing. > So, they're okay with never using RDF/XML or Turtle or RDFa and always using TriG or JSON-LD if there are any bundles involved in the provenance data? If so, yes, that would simplify things. Then they just need to say a few words about <n,g> pairs, and they're all set. -- Sandro > > AZ. > > >> >> -- 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 14:03:24 UTC