ISSUE-143: LC comment: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs?
LC comment: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDF TriG
- Raised by:
- Guus Schreiber
- Opened on:
- 2013-09-25
- Description:
- Comment from Paul Groth:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0030.html
Hi All,
I was reviewing the Trig spec. We use trig to express nanopublications -
light weight forms of provenance attached to graphs. Each nanopublication
has three graphs associated with it:
- an assertion graph
- a publication info graph
- a provenance graph
The provenance graph points to the the assertion graph.
GRAPH :assert { ... }
GRAPH :provenance { :assert prov:wasDerivedFrom :xyz . }
Is this ok with what's coming out?
I ask because we have a ton of post translational modifications and protein
isoforms modeled like this [1]/
Thanks!
Paul
[1] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj461.pdf - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Steps to Move Concepts to CR (from david@3roundstones.com on 2013-10-17)
- Re: agenda 2 Oct telecon (from eric@w3.org on 2013-10-02)
- agenda 2 Oct telecon (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-01)
- RDF-ISSUE-143: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs? [RDF Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-09-25)
Related notes:
Closed with agreement of the commenter:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0088.html
WG response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0053.html
Display change log