- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:29:29 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On Oct 10, 2012, at 11:14 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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. No, because this was pending in this WG. I believe that it would be o.k. for that group to add that extra semantic definition if they are so instructed by the RDF WG. > > 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. > That has already been raised as an issue on the LC documents (by me:-) and these will disappear in the CR version of the document. > 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/ >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:30:06 UTC