W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > January 2013

Re: ISSUE-72: Provenance Data Category

From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:12:37 +0000
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com, chase@spartanconsultinginc.com
Message-ID: <OFE6A728E9.02708636-ON80257AF3.0052E1CF-80257AF3.00538DBD@vistatec.ie>
> ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a 
> <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the (temporal) 
> order in which the records were created?  If an ordering is implied, 
> it raises questions about the implied ordering in a document where 
> provenance records are declared both globally and via local markup.

I would think that the order of provenance records implying temporal order 
would cause all kinds of implementation problems.

> iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a 
> date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form of history 
> somewhat muddy.  In practice, a single tool/agent may edit a single 
> document multiple times in succession over an arbitrary period of 
> time.  Should these multiple "sessions" be represented by a single 
> logical provenance record?  Or is it the intention of the spec that 
> the agent add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which 
> a modification is made to the document?

Lack of a date/time does sound like an oversight on reflection. Having one 
would solve isue (ii). Dave, are date/times of provenance records provided 
for in the PROV standard? Although I'd still think we need them in ITS 
becuase the creation of an actual provenance record in a triple store 
could be later than the event itself.

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, 
Date:   12/01/2013 14:41
Subject:        ISSUE-72: Provenance Data Category



Hi all,

> i) Can an element have both local provenance data (either inline or 
> via local standoff markup) and also reference global provenance data 
> (declared via global standoff markup) using the attribute specified 
> globally via provenanceRecordsRefPointer?  The draft does not specify.

I don't think so. Overriding rules takes care of that: any 
provenanceRecordsRefPointer of a global rule would be overridden by the 
local provenanceRecordsRef. In other words, one cannot have in the same 
node: provenancerecordsRef and an another attribute that is declared as 
having the same semantics via a provenanceRecordsRefPointer in a global 
rule.


> ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a 
> <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the (temporal) 
> order in which the records were created?  If an ordering is implied, 
> it raises questions about the implied ordering in a document where 
> provenance records are declared both globally and via local markup.
>
> iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a 
> date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form of history 
> somewhat muddy.  In practice, a single tool/agent may edit a single 
> document multiple times in succession over an arbitrary period of 
> time.  Should these multiple "sessions" be represented by a single 
> logical provenance record?  Or is it the intention of the spec that 
> the agent add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which 
> a modification is made to the document?

Good points. Hopefully the Provenance champions have answers.

cheers,
-yves




************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 15:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:26 UTC