W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:22:02 +0200
Message-ID: <5087F98A.1000206@vu.nl>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:22 UTC