ISSUE-425: Why does the service description need to be rdf?

service-description-rdf

Why does the service description need to be rdf?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Accessing and Querying Provenance
Raised by:
Paul Groth
Opened on:
2012-06-20
Description:
It may be useful to provide the service description in another language (e.g wsdl). Why does it need to be rdf?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. prov-wg: core paq issues - please think/discuss before telcon (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-03-13)
  2. PROV-AQ issues pending review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
  3. PROV-AQ responses to Luc's review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
  4. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2013-02-11)
  5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from gklyne@googlemail.com on 2013-02-10)
  6. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-02-10)
  7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-02-08)
  8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2013-02-08)
  9. Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-02-08)
  10. Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (from ivan@w3.org on 2013-02-08)
  11. Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2013-02-07)
  12. PROV-AQ: Format of provenance service document (ISSUE 425) (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2012-12-10)
  13. PROV-AQ: ISSUE-425: format of service description (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-11-26)
  14. PROV-ISSUE-425 (service-description-rdf): Why does the service description need to be rdf? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-06-20)

Related notes:

My short answer to this is: because it's easiest to specify. I think we already pulled back somewhat from describing multiple formats in other contexts.

A slightly longer answer is: this isn't a closed specification. It's not even normative. There's nothing in this document that prevents use of some other format selected using content negotiation.

Section 4.3 already suggests use of content negotiation to select an RDF format. I'd suggest adding an additional sentence in this section along the lines of "While use of RDF for service descriptions is a recommended option, this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats that a service may choose to offer, and which can be selected using HTTP content negotation"

Graham Klyne, 6 Nov 2012, 15:11:17

I've added text as suggested, and offer it for review (when the document is pushed back to the W3C repo)

Graham Klyne, 6 Nov 2012, 15:13:29

Open discussion with LDP group about their thoughts for a service document format for REST API resource discovery ala service document. (Also mention Mark Nottingham's JSON proposal in IETF.)

Soften the text so that it's more like a recommendation that a requirement (for now, at least).

Graham Klyne, 14 Nov 2012, 22:17:24

https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/434 merges with this.

Graham Klyne, 14 Nov 2012, 23:18:59

Email sent to prov-wg and ldp lists:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0036.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Nov/0186.html

Graham Klyne, 20 Nov 2012, 12:04:20

Responses from LDP indicate that it's something they'll consider, but don't yet have a position. Proposing to leave text as is, but have added a note drawing attention to the LDP activity and recommending that developers follow consensus that may emerge.

Graham Klyne, 26 Nov 2012, 12:14:56

See: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#provenance-service-description

Graham Klyne, 26 Nov 2012, 12:18:34

See also:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Nov/0325.html

which is in response to a related point raised by Tim.

Graham Klyne, 10 Dec 2012, 17:32:32

Re-opening in response to comments by Ivan and Stian. We need to form a clear consensus about what we'll recommend, and what (if anything) we'll require.

See also: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622

Graham Klyne, 7 Feb 2013, 14:09:59

The latest version of the spec adopts a fairly liberal position in that the service description may be in any format selectable by content negotiation, but only RDF-based formats are defined by this note, and standardized content-types are redcommended. I think this leaves the way open for XML-based services without getting into details of specifying them, which is consistent with the generally format-independent stance of PROV-AQ.

Propose to close with no further change.

Graham Klyne, 7 Mar 2013, 15:22:09

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 425.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:43 vivien Exp $