- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:24:45 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On Oct 10, 2012, at 16:10 , Pat Hayes wrote: > > OK, thats good. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "instruction" :-) > You just gave them in your previous mail...:-) Ivan > Pat > > >> >> Ivan >> >>> Pat >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > > > ---- 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 20:25:18 UTC