- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:54:14 +0200
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 12 Oct 2012, at 17:12, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > I'm not sure whether they actually want the "name" to denote the graph. I'm pretty sure they do. AFAICT, PROV has a general philosophy that goes like, “if it changes, it's a new entity”, and I read their spec as saying that bundle names are really meant to be rigidly connected to a particular set of provenance descriptions. Whether these provenance descriptions are expressed as triples or PROV-N assertions seems secondary and interchangeable. This doesn't mean that the “static g-box” approach wouldn't have worked for them. Best, Richard > They certainly want it to denote a "bundle", which indeed will /contain/ RDF triples, but may be distinct from an RDF graph (especially since "bundles" do not consist of triples in the abstract syntax). At least, it is the way I interpret it, and it is the way I would like it to be. It gives more flexibility as the graph IRI is not rigidly fixed to the exact set of triples providing in a particular RDF dataset. With this view, it is even less a problem that we do not tell them what the graph IRI denotes. > > > AZ. > > > >> >> Best, Richard >> >> >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > 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 Friday, 12 October 2012 15:54:46 UTC