- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:14:09 +0200
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 10 Oct 2012, at 16:54, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >> 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. > > I cannot say if they are Ok or even if they are considering it seriously, since I'm not involved in the PROV WG, but from what I read in their documents (PROV-DM and PROV-CONSTRAINT, the only ones I've read), it looks like they could simply rely on TriG to serialise PROV documents. They could still use Turtle or RDF/XML for the special---yet common---case of simple provenance instances without bundles. In PROV-O they say that how exactly to represent bundle contents is out of scope of PROV-O. Using RDF datasets and TriG would work from a technical point of view with a few comments about the assumed relationships between the IRIs and graphs, but they don't attempt that at the moment. Funny enough, PROV-O has some examples that use TriG syntax. They don't say what the syntax is, and don't reference any spec that defines the syntax -- they just provide the examples without comment on the syntax. Best, Richard > > > AZ. > > >> >> -- 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > 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/ >
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:14:44 UTC