W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Provenance usage scenario - releaseTime

From: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:20:18 -0800
Message-ID: <145C1D60907A4944ABAE75DE3FF6418C2C7FD6@xchanger3.interwoven.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
As I mentioned, I'm not real clear on just what the impact of
deciding on 'stating' vs. 'statement' would be, so here's an
example of the sorts of things I think PRISM's users might want
to do re. provenance.

Problem to be solved:

PDQ Publications sends electronic copies of their content
to an aggregator/distributor who makes them accessible along
with lots of other articles. Each article has a metadata
record that provides information including the embargo date
for the article. One of the records contains:

<rdf:RDF  ... namespace decls...>
 <rdf:Description rdf:about="someArticleURI">
  <dc:rights rdf:parseType="Resource">
   <!-- 6:00 PM EST on Valentine's Day -->
  <dc:title>Valentine's Day Ideas</dc:title>
  <dc:publisher>PDQ Publications</dc:publisher>

Someone connected with the publisher does a search on the
distributor's site and finds the article before they think
it should have been available. They call the distributor
to demand an explanation. The distributor needs to be
able to search and find out a few things:
  1) What is the embargo time in their system?
  2) What embargo time was in the original metadata provided
     by the publisher?
  3) If they differ, who changed it and when - did the publisher
     send an updated metadata record or was the change made by
     someone at the distributor?

Possible solution:
(This does not have to be the way it happens, but this shows the
sort of stuff I think needs to be represented.)

To enable such searches, the Distributor archives not only
the articles but also the incoming metadata descriptions of
the articles. It also maintains a simple 'provenance' database
recording the association between things, and the time the
records were received. The triples below are part of that
provenance database. They show the initial reception of the
article and metadata, and also that the metadata for the article
was updated by the publisher the next morning.

  <someArticleURI> <D:describedBy> <MD-record-URI>
  <MD-record-URI>  <prism:receptionTime> "2002-02-13T18:00:27.43"
  <MD-record-URI>  <dc:source>  "PDQ Publications"
  <someArticleURI> <prism:receptionTime> "2002-02-13T18:00:27.45"
  <someArticleURI> <D:describedBy> <MD-record2-URI>
  <MD-record2-URI>  <prism:receptionTime> "2002-02-14T09:12:34.56"
  <MD-record2-URI>  <dc:source>  "PDQ Publications"

Checking the releaseTime provenance is a common operation, so the
person who gets the irate phone call brings up the web form for checking
it. They ask the caller for info like the title and publisher,
then search to get info on the article. That web form is converted
into a query:

     ?X  <dc:title> "Valentine's Day Ideas"
     ?X  <dc:publisher> "PDQ Publications"

      => X = <someArticleURI>

(of course, exact match searching would not be used, and the user
would probably have to pick the article from a list of results,
but I digress)

and then the system queries the provenance database (plus the
stored metadata records, probably no need to extract all their
triples into the prov. DB, but that's an implementation detail):

      <someArticleURI> <D:describedBy> ?M     # M is metadata record URI
      ?M   <prism:receptionTime>  ?Tgot
      ?M   <dc:source>  ?FromWho
      ?M   <x:contains> ?_S                   # _S is statement URI
      ?_S  <rdf:type>  <rdf:Statement>
      ?_S  <rdf:subject> <someArticleURI>
      ?_S  <rdf:predicate> <prism:releaseTime>
      ?_S  <rdf:object> ?Trel

      => [
          M = <MD-record-URI>
          Tgot = "2002-02-13T18:00:27.43"
          FromWho = "PDQ Publications"
          _S = <intStmtId1234567>
          Trel = "2002-02-14T18:00:00-05:00"
          M = <MD-record2-URI>
          Tgot = "2002-02-14T09:12:34.56"
          FromWho = "PDQ Publications"
          _S = <intStmtId987654321>
          Trel = "2002-02-14T09:12:33.01-05:00"

Those results are formatted for display. They show something like

  Title:  Valentine's Day Ideas
    Initial reception:  Feb. 13, 2002, 6:00:27.43 PM EST
    Source: PDQ Publishing
    Stated embargo time:  Feb. 14, 2002, 6:00 PM EST

    First update received: Feb. 14, 2002, 9:12:34.56  AM EST
    Source: PDQ Publishing
    Stated Embargo time: Feb. 14, 2002, 9:12:33.01  AM EST

Thus it looks like when the publisher sent an update for the
article's metadata the release time was replaced by the
current time on their end. (We don't know exactly when the
publisher sent something, we just know when we got it and
what it contained. But since the embargo time in the second
record is a second before the time we got it, it seems a
reasonable assumption for a person to make)

The user handling the complaint asks for the caller's email
address. The report above, as well as copies of the two
received metadata records, are emailed to the caller.


1) It must be possible for the receiver to give an identity to a
   received RDF serialization and store it for later queries.
2) It must be possible for the receiver to search stored RDF
   records for statements with particular subjects, objects, and/or
     a) it must be possible to give at least a temporary identity
        to each 'statement' in a received RDF record
        (By 'statement' I do not mean to imply anything about Brian's
         'stating' vs. 'statement' terminology)
    b) It must be possible to indicate which serialized RDF document
       contains a statement and vice versa. 
    c) it should be possible for creators of metadata records to
        assign IDs to statements

Ron Daniel Jr.
Standards Architect
Interwoven, Inc.
Tel: 408-530-5922
Cell: 925-368-8371
Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com 

Visit www.interwoven.com
The Leader in Enterprise Content Management
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 14:20:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC