- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:22:02 +0200
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, <team-prov-chairs@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Paul, Luc, We finally can answer to your request. Apologies for the repeated delays. At its last telecon the RDF WG resolved the following [1]: [[ RESOLVED: We reply to the Prov WG that we don't see any technical incompatibilities between their work and RDF 1 or RDF 1.1 as we currently imagine it. If a suitable example is eventually included in our docs, we will try to use PROV output therein. ]] I include some points made in the discussions on our mailing list which might be useful as background information for this resolution (see [2] for the complete discussion thread): * The RDF WG will provide a syntax for RDF datasets, which we think can be used as a syntax for representing bundles. You should consider TriG to be the strawman for this syntax. We are in the process of resolving the details of the dataset syntax. * The RDF WG will not provide a semantics for RDF datasets. This means that the PROV WG is on its own w.r.t. the interpretation of bundles represented as RDF datasets. * Basically, you should consider RDF datasets to be "syntactic containers for logical expressions" [3]. The RDF WG does not provide a mechanism to specify the nature of the relation between the "name" (see remarks of Pat Hayes on weather "name" is an appropriate term [4]) and the graph it "names". Hope this is still of some use, Guus, co-chair RDF WG [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17#resolution_1 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0033.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0074.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0063.html On 17-09-2012 13:07, Paul Groth 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 >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 14:22:32 UTC