W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Modified proposal for 'provenance triple', ISSUE-110

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:56:06 +0200
To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0DA696BB-0F06-4A7B-8432-2A222ECA1827@w3.org>
After our discussion and the last telco, and subsequent emails, I would like to modify the proposal.

Proposal: for each RDFa source, the processor graph should contain one triple of the sort

- subject: URI referring to the processor graph (typically <> in Turtle, or @about="" in RDF/XML, though implementation MAY define a specific URI for that purpose)
- predicate: http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#hasSource (see also discussion below)
- object: the initial value of the base URI, as defined in 7.2 of the RDFa Core document

I have chosen the simplest possible way for the predicate URI, namely to define one for ourselves, which may not be the best. Ideas that came up during the discussion

- powder:describedby : but is it correct that the RDF content 'describes' the HTML content? THat may not necessarily be the case, it may give additional data that is not in the HTML

- foaf:primaryTopic (Virtuoso seems to use that): "property relates a document to the main thing that the document is about.", says the foaf spec; this is, in my view, closer than powder:describedby

- dcterms has a provenance property, but its range is defined as a 'ProvenanceStatement', which would then create (via RDFS) an extra type information on the original data, and I do not think that is fine

- The provenance vocabulary (http://purl.org/net/provenance/ns#) also has some predicates but, just as dcterms, it contains a number of range specification that yields extra types on the original base URI. I am not sure that is o.k. If we disregard that, then prv:accessedResource is probably the best one[1], it generates a type information of 'internet Resource'[2], which is fairly harmless. The problem is whether prv is stable enough for a Rec, though.

- The draft of the provenance model of the Prov WG seems to have a hasOriginalSource predicate (in section 6.4), but I am not sure whether this is stable.


The stable thing is to use our own predicate, and maybe define a sub-property relationship later when the provenance WG's terms gel. Alternatively, we can ask the Prov WG for their advice. I can live with primaryTopic, but it does not feel _really_ right either. 

Ivan



[1] http://trdf.sourceforge.net/provenance/ns.html#accessedResource
[2] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/web/irw.owl#WebResource
[3] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 12:53:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:52 UTC