1 / 18

W3C PROV Constraints

This presentation by Paul Groth at ISWC 2013, supported by Ivan Herman, delves into the complexities of provenance statements and the necessity of validating these structures. It introduces an abstract data model for provenance with defined constraints, illustrating how these can be utilized to ensure data consistency and correctness. The discussion includes practical applications for constraint validation, ways to translate requirements into OWL, and the use of tools such as Prov-check and the Southampton Provenance Suite for validation.

gloriann-stevens
Télécharger la présentation

W3C PROV Constraints

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. W3C PROV Constraints ISWC 2013 Paul Groth slide help from Ivan Herman

  2. Checking provenance statements(“Constraints”) • Provenance statements can become fairly complicated  • In some applications it may become advantageous to check the validity of the provenance structures. e1 e2

  3. Definition of the constraints • An abstract data model for provenance (with its own, abstract notation) is also published • http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/ Note that the “qualified” versions are unnecessary at that level, relationships are n-ary entity(<http://.../isbn/000651409X>) activity(:WritingTheBook) wasGeneratedBy(<http://.../isbn/000651409X>,:WritingTheBook) agent(:AmitavGhosh, [prov:type='prov:Person',foaf:name='AmitavGhosh']) wasAttributedTo(<http://.../isbn/000651409X>,:AmitavGhosh, [roles:witRole='roles:author'])

  4. Definition of the constraints • A separate document defines the constraints on the abstract data model • http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/ • Constraints themselves are defined as a set of abstract rules • they may translated into: • (partially) into OWL • rules, e.g., using SPARQL • general constraint checkers on the abstract model are also doable

  5. Normalization • From an RDF perspective • Expand • Everything is already merged by virtue of URIs • Blank nodes….

  6. Events on a Lifetime end start generation invalidation :e1 :a1

  7. Uniqueness Constraints select ?e where { ?e prov:qualifiedGeneration ?gen1 . ?gen1 prov:activity ?act . ?e prov:qualifiedGeneration ?gen2 . ?gen2 prov:activity ?act . FILTER (?gen1 != ?gen2) }

  8. Create the event timeline INSERT { ?gen c:precedes ?end . } WHERE { ?act a prov:Activity . ?act prov:qualifiedEnd ?end . ?act prov:qualifiedGeneration ?gen . } :e1

  9. Check for cycles select ?x where { ?x (c:precedes+|c:strictlyPrecedes+)/ c:strictlyPrecedes ?x . }

  10. Impossibility Constrainte.g. Activity & Entity disjoint select ?e where { ?e a prov:Entity, prov:Activity . }

  11. Do you fill all the slots? select ?asc where { ?asc a prov:Association . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?a prov:qualifiedAssociation ?asc . } }

  12. Validators • Prov-check • https://github.com/pgroth/prov-check • Southampton Provenance Suite • https://provenance.ecs.soton.ac.uk

More Related