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:

1. Steps to Move Concepts to CR (from david@3roundstones.com on 2013-10-17)
2. Re: agenda 2 Oct telecon (from eric@w3.org on 2013-10-02)
3. agenda 2 Oct telecon (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-01)
4. RDF-ISSUE-143: nanopublications are they ok with RDF graphs? [RDF Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-09-25)

Related notes:

Display change log