Re: PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]

Graham,

You raised issue 479 and in response the prov-o team:

* removed the use of TriG in examples where possible and 
* added the following statement to the beginning of the cross reference section:

[[
"Most examples shown in this cross reference are encoded using the Turtle RDF serialization. When an example requires a prov:Bundle, it may use the [TRIG] syntax. Although this document does not specify how to encode Bundles in RDF, TriG's named graph construct is used only to illustrate the concept."
]]

The following informative reference is also provided:

[TRIG]
Henry S. Thompson; et al. The TriG Syntax. modified 30 July 2007, accessed November 05 2012 URL: http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/trig/


http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-479_.28citing_Trig.29

Could you let us know if that satisfies your concern?

Regards,
Tim




On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:28 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> I think I forgot my periods.
> 
> It should be
> 
> <>  a prov:Bundle;
> prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
>    prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob.
> 
> my:report1
>    a my:Report, prov:Entity.
> 
> So there are no quads.
> 
> The <> refers to the document (or base url).
> 
> So maybe for all clarity we should ensure that the base url is clearly
> a document eg. http://www.example.com/example.ttl
> 
> What your doing is just saying that the current document is a bundle.
> 
> cheers
> Paul
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Paul and Ivan,
>> Thanks for the responses!
>> 
>>> 
>>> I would suggest the following for modifying the example:
>>> 
>>> ## A provenance file located a http://example.com/provbundle1
>>> 
>>> @base:     <http://example.com/provbundle1> .
>>> @prefix my:      <http://example.com/my#> .
>>> @prefix prov:    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
>>> 
>>> <>  a prov:Bundle;
>>>   prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
>>>   prov:wasAttributedTo :Bob;
>>> 
>>> my:report1
>>> a my:Report, prov:Entity;
>> 
>> 
>> I may be missing something, but I interpret the above example as:
>> 1. <> my:report1 a my:Report . and <> my:report1 a prov:Entity. - are quads
>> instead of triples?
>> 
>> Did you mean to have an explicit predicate linking statements (reports) to
>> the bundle
>> 
>> <bundle1>
>>   a prov:Bundle ;
>>   <contains> my:report1, my:report2 ;
>>   prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:30:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
>> 
>> with rest of the statements from your example following?
>> 
>> ("contains" being a locally defined predicate.)
>> 
>> or both bundle1 and report1 to be bundles? - in that case both would be same
>> as any other entity?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Satya
>> 
>>> 
>>> my:version "1";
>>> prov:generatedAtTime "2012-05-24T10:00:01"^^xsd:dateTime;
>>> .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you want to get really fancy, you can switch the bases in the
>>> middle of the example to talk about multiple files (i.e. bundles).
>>> 
>>> Does that make sense?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Sep 2012, at 02:53, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I am following up on this issue for prov-o.
>>>> 
>>>> I looked up the turtle WD http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ and could not
>>>> find an
>>>> appropriate construct for representing a prov bundle. Trig seems to be
>>>> only
>>>> way to represent a RDF named graph, unless we want to use a blank node
>>>> for a
>>>> bundle (http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#unlabeled-bnodes)? The RDF WG also
>>>> seems to be still discussing the issue
>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdf11-concepts-20120605/#section-dataset).
>>>> 
>>>> Hence, do we resolve this issue by referring to Trig explicitly in the
>>>> prov-o document (for now)?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think the idea was *not* to refer TriG explicitly and, as Paul
>>>> suggests,
>>>> use different (Turtle) documents for the bundles for now. TriG is
>>>> especially
>>>> problematic as a reference: there are references that the community uses
>>>> here and there and which do not even exist any more:-(
>>>> 
>>>> That being said, the RDF WG may be in a better shape than we look to the
>>>> outside, and it is not impossible that a TriG document will be published
>>>> before the end of the year. Ie, we may make the editorial change of
>>>> using
>>>> TriG later in the process (the examples are non normative anyway). We
>>>> should
>>>> go for the safe option in my view, which is Paul's proposal in my view.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Satya
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we can do that, it would certainly be fool proof for now...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ivan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:56 , Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For this issue, I wonder if the best approach would be to give
>>>>>> examples of bundles that don't use trig. Then, we would be turtle
>>>>>> compatible and wouldn't have confusion when whatever extended syntax
>>>>>> comes out.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We can just show it as two separate documents.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 20:21 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-479: cite TriG for examples [Ontology]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>>>> On product: Ontology
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The syntax used in the examples should be mentioned (it is TriG
>>>>>>>> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/trig/).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Per Graham in email
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/5023A271.90500@ninebynine.org :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (Currently, I'm posing this as a question I need to understand
>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> to reason coherently about aspects of provenance expressed in RDF,
>>>>>>>> but I may
>>>>>>>> also raise it as a formal issue.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can't see a specification or citation for the syntax used for
>>>>>>>> examples in PROV-O.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This may seem like a trivial point, but I think it's a serious
>>>>>>>> omission.  In particular, I'm trying to interpret how the mentionOf
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> bundle structure plays out when represented in RDF and, while I can
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> guesses, that's not a sound basis for interpretation.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Most of the examples appear to conform with Turtle
>>>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/), but there are some
>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle) that do not.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As I put in one of my earlier comments, it is probably wise to refer
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the current RDF WG Working Draft, too, in the references:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Turtle is currently in Last Call. It may not win the race and become
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Rec before Prov does, but citing it at least as a work in progress
>>>>>>> makes a
>>>>>>> lot of sense. (And, who knows, Turtle might become Rec earlier.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The TriG stuff is clearly not yet there and therefore the ...#Bundle
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> indeed illegal syntax.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Because such examples given go beyond the current structure
>>>>>>>> expressible as an RDF graph, I think some explanation should be
>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>> about how these should be interpreted as RDF.  (E.g. "<id> {
>>>>>>>> <turtle
>>>>>>>> expression> }" could be presented as an RDF document on the web at
>>>>>>>> URI
>>>>>>>> "<id>".  If this reflects what is intended, then I think some
>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>> comment is needed about when it is valid to merge these graphs, or
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> kinds of cross-bundle inferences are possible, because the PROV-O
>>>>>>>> ontology
>>>>>>>> alone can't express any of that.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am not sure it is worth going down that route. For those one or
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> examples I think, for the time being, referring to TriG should be
>>>>>>> fine. I
>>>>>>> cannot predict whether the RDF WG may come up with a syntax in time;
>>>>>>> I would
>>>>>>> not bet on it...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (Most of this "processing model" concern goes away if we drop
>>>>>>>> mentionOf.  But in order to understand how mentionOf plays out in
>>>>>>>> the RDF
>>>>>>>> representation of provenance, as described by the OWL ontology, I
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> understand these details.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> #g
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>>>>>> - The Network Institute
>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>>>  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>>> - The Network Institute
>>> VU University Amsterdam
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
> 
>

Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 16:24:26 UTC