Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model]

Hi Graham,
This issue was closed, pending review.
Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we
close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it,
or create a more specific issue.
Thanks,
Luc

PS See note on this issue's page



On 29/07/11 10:09, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/62
>
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> Introduction of "characterized entities" - if this is something that
> really needs to be said, I think it needs to be clarified.  I spent
> some time thinking about these two sentences, trying to work out if
> they could ever be completely correct, or just not understanding what
> they are intended to convey:
>
> [[ Furthermore, this specification is concerned with characterized
> entities, that is, entities and their situation in the world, as
> perceived by their asserters.
>
> In the rest of the document, we are concerned with the representation
> of such entities; their situation in the world will be represented
> using sets of attributes.  ]]
>
> Why "characterized entities" as opposed to perceived entities"?
> What's the important distinction here?
>
> The only interpretation I've found that makes sense to me is that the
> document is concerning itself with entities that are characterized by
> the values of some bounded set of attributes.  But that
> interpretation, if correct, is not obvious to me from the wording
> here.
>
>
> "PIL is a language by which representations of the world can be
> expressed using terms that are drawn from a controlled vocabulary. "
> I'm not sure how to interpret this.  Does this "controlled vocabulary
> include, for example, numbers? Is this controlled vocabulary expected
> to be the complete set of terms used in PIL expressions?
>
>
> "These representations are relative to an asserter, and in that sense
> constitute assertions about the world."  What is this trying to say?
> I think you might mean something like:
>
> "These representations are relative to the context of an asserter, and
> in that sense constitute perceptions about the world."  which ties
> back to the earlier statement about "as perceived by their asserters".
>
> "All assertions in PIL SHOULD be interpreted as a record of what has
> happened, as opposed to what may or will happen."  I feel we should
> find a way to strengthen this SHOULD to a MUST, but comments from
> earlier discussions make this tricky to get right.  Maybe:
>
> "All assertions in PIL MUST be interpreted as a record of what has
> happened or been observed in some context, as opposed to what might
> happen or potential observations."  In this, I am using the reference
> to a context to provide just enough wiggle-room for description in
> future or imagined contexts.
>
> "This specification does not prescribe the means by which assertions
> are made, for example on the basis of observations, inferences, or any
> other means."
> The phrasing "... assertions are made" here is jarring, if not
> confusing - I would think that assertions are made in PIL for the
> purposes of this spec. Suggest "... how assertions are arrived at,
> ..."
>
> "The language introduces a notion of "provenance container", which
> provides a default scope for assertions."  The term "container" here
> is suggested of a physical or logical encapsulation, which I don't
> think is meant.  How about "provenance context"?
>
> [[ ... The model may define additional scoping rules for
> assertions. Identifiers can safely be used within that
> scope. Optionally, identifiers can be exported so that they can be
> used outside their default scope. The language does not prescribe the
> mechanisms by which identifiers are generated.  ]]
>
> This spec is describing a data model, *not* a language.  It says so at
> the top.  As such I think it's entirely inappropriate to start
> defining linguistic constructs such as identifiers and scoping.
> Assuming the actual language used will be RDF, I'm not seeing how what
> you describe will be possible.
>
> "In this specification, when an assertion is defined to refer to
> another assertion about something, it does so by means of that thing's
> identifier."  I don't understand what this is trying to say.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:11:47 UTC