- From: Paolo Missier <pmissier@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:32:10 +0100
- To: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
- CC: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Hi, a couple of further comments on this thread: On 25/10/2010 07:41, Olaf Hartig wrote: > Hey, > > On Sunday 24 October 2010 15:50:28 Paul Groth wrote: >> Hi Olaf, >> >> Thanks for the comments. Really good. Some replies in-line >> [...] >> * You speak about "provenance of any web-resource". I still struggle to see > how Web resources, in general, have provenance. To me provenance is associated > primarily with specific representations of Web resources that we retrieve from > the Web. why wouldn't resources have provenance? just like a piece of data in a database. I see it the opposite way: isn't the provenance of a manifestation of a resource is just (some view of) the provenance of the resource itself? >>> 2.) Regarding Deliverable D4: What does "(3) how to query provenance >>> through a SPARQL endpoint" mean? What do you have in mind here? >> This would specify about retrieving provenance for a resource using >> sparql. So given a resource, how would you write a sparql query to >> retrieve that resource provenance. > Do we talk about a SPARQL endpoint that exposes a dataset which explicitly > contains provenance information here? In this case it shouldn't be too difficult > to write such queries; you only have to know which provenance vocabulary is > being used to represent provenance information in the dataset. I agree that given the vocabulaty, writing SPARQL queries against it looks like a standard exercise. In this case, is D4 just a collection of examples or template queries? How about provenance queries that cannot be written directly in SPARQL (closure queries that trace causality through the graph, for example) Best, -Paolo
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 11:32:49 UTC