RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

OK - Does this mean that rather than resources being entities we just need to say resources can be asserted to be entities? (After which the resource URI is a valid identifier for that entity in subsequent pil statements?)

 Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Assertions in PIDM do not have an identity, it's characterized things/activies
> that have to be identifiable.
> (Obviously, we could introduce assertion identity  if it is required.)
> 
> So, coming to your question, I complete the example in the Abstract syntax
> notation:
> 
> 
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim
> Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> 
> entity(http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/File:IPAW2010_ITTIA_Myers.pdf,
> [author="Jim Myers", presentationTime="10h15" ])
> 
> entity(http://easychair/uuid, [author="Jim Myers", reviewers={xyz, abc},
> recommendation="accept"])
> 
> processExecution(pe0,download)
> uses(downloadPE, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, r1)
> isGeneratedBy(localfileURI, pe0, r2)
> 
> 
> Would pil let me sayhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37
> hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that this is not a PIL predicate. But yes, that
> looks reasonable.
> 
> Luc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/23/2011 03:48 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> >> That's exactly what I am saying,
> >>
> > Which of the follow two directions, or something different?
> >
> > If someone downloads http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37,
> > Can I assert:
> >
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37<--used--
> DownloadPE<--generatedby--          LocalFileURI
> >
> > or is it
> > http://lucsassertions.org/12345 = entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
> 642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> > and
> >   http://lucsassertions.org/12345<--used--           DownloadPE<--
> generatedby--          LocalFileURI
> >
> >
> > Would pil let me say http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37
> hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?
> >
> > Or only
> >
> > http://lucsassertions.org/12345 hasAuthor "Jim Myers" ?
> >
> >
> >    Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:36 AM
> >> To: Myers, Jim
> >> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>
> >> Hi Jim,
> >>
> >> That's exactly what I am saying, your paper is an identified characterized
> >> thing. And we can make assertions about it. An assertion is expressed
> with
> >> the pil:Entity construct.
> >>
> >> I suppose that I can make the following  different assertions about your
> >> paper. I can further state that they complement each other.
> >>
> >> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim
> >> Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> >>
> >> entity(http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/File:IPAW2010_ITTIA_Myers.pdf,
> >> [author="Jim Myers", presentationTime="10h15" ])
> >>
> >> entity(http://easychair/uuid, [author="Jim Myers", reviewers={xyz, abc},
> >> recommendation="accept"])
> >>
> >>
> >> What does it sound like?
> >>
> >> Luc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/23/2011 02:19 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>
> >>> Luc,
> >>> If my IPAW paper is on the web with a URL, why isn't that resource an
> >>>
> >> "identified characterized thing"? Are you saying that I must create
> another ID
> >> for a pil:entity that is an assertion about that paper before I can record its
> >> provenance? Or are you just arguing that because entities are assertions,
> an
> >> asserter can make them up, i.e. a characterization that is most useful for
> >> provenance may not be one that is already identified as a resource?
> >>
> >>> I guess I'm looking for the practical impact - are you arguing that we
> always
> >>>
> >> have a layer of indirection when recording provenance of an existing
> >> resource, or are you arguing something more subtle - use of a resource
> URL
> >> in pil as an entity is an assertion that the resource is characterized in a way
> >> that is suitable for the provenance being recorded (i.e. the resource is
> >> immutable to the types of processes being recorded and we're not
> talking,
> >> for example, about a live web page going through edit processes)?
> >>
> >>>    Jim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> >>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:54 AM
> >>>> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am joining late this conversation, but I'd like to comment on Paul's
> >>>> sentence:
> >>>>
> >>>>    >   It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page) is a
> pil:Entity.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think this makes sense at all. A pil:Entity is a construct of the data
> >>>> model.
> >>>>
> >>>> Definition: An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it is reasonable to compare resource and thing (as in the model
> >>>> document), but not resource and pil:entity.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, we can say a pil:entity is an assertion about a resource.
> >>>> For a given resource, there may be many pil:entity about that resource.
> >>>>
> >>>> Luc
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/11/2011 07:01 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jim, Khalid:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the model, provenance is described with respect to pil:Entities. In
> >>>>> the PAQ document, we describe access primarily with respect to the
> >>>>>
> >> Web
> >>
> >>>>> Architecture. It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page)
> >>>>> is a pil:Entity. If so, then the access approach says go ahead and use
> >>>>> the url of that resource to find the provenance of it within an
> >>>>> identified set of provenance information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, it may be the case that the resource is not a pil:Entity. In
> >>>>> that case, we provide a mechanism (Target-URIs) that let you
> associate
> >>>>> the resource to a pil:Entity (the target) such that you can identify a
> >>>>> characterization of the resource and thus find it in some provenance
> >>>>> provenance information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This approach also lets you have multiple pil:Entities associated with
> >>>>> a particular resource.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are just rying to find a simple way to let the accessor know when
> >>>>> they get some provenance information what they should be looking
> for
> >>>>> within that provenance information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, if one says that every resource is  a pil:Entity, we may not need
> >>>>> this. Is that what you're saying? and can you explain how this is the
> >>>>> case?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope this clarifies what we are trying to enable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the gist of the discussion on the modeling side lately and
> >>>>>> the decision to have 'only Bobs' would shift this towards just
> >>>>>> talking about the link between provenance and resources with the
> >>>>>> model then having a mechanism to indicate when some resources
> are
> >>>>>> views of others, i.e. one URI is the page content on a given date and
> >>>>>> the other URI is the live page, but both are resources that can have
> >>>>>> provenance, and their provenance can contain links that indicate
> >>>>>> their relationship.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jim
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *From:*public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
> >>>>>> [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Khalid
> >>>>>> Belhajjame
> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:13 AM
> >>>>>> *To:* Paul Groth
> >>>>>> *Cc:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My main concern reading sections 1 and 3, is the use of both
> resource
> >>>>>> and target entity. I understand that the idea is that a web resources
> >>>>>> may be associated with multiple target entities, and that there is a
> >>>>>> need to identify which target the provenance describes. However,
> >>>>>> having to go through the two levels resource then entity is a bit
> >>>>>> confusing, specially for a reader is not aware of the discussions
> >>>>>> that we had about the two concepts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggestion: Would it be really bad if we confine ourselves to the
> >>>>>> provenance vocabulary and describe how the provenance of an
> Entity,
> >>>>>> as opposed to a resource, can be accessed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Other comments:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - In the definition of a resource, it said that "a resource may be
> >>>>>> associated with multiple targets". It would be good if we could
> >>>>>> clarify this relationship a bit more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I find the definition of provenance information a bit vague, the
> >>>>>> body of the definition says pretty much the same thing as the title
> >>>>>> of the definition. If we don't have a better idea of what can be
> >>>>>> said, it is probably better to remove it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In Section 3, Second paragraph, "Once provenance information
> >>>>>> information" ->   "once provenance information"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the same paragraph: "one needs how to identify" ->   "one needs
> to
> >>>>>> know how to identify".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Khalid
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/08/2011 20:37, Paul Groth wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Graham and I have been making some changes to the PAQ
> document
> >>>>>>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>>>>> that we would like to request feedback on at tomorrow's telecon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In particular, we have updated Sections 1 and 3. We've added a
> >>>>>> section on core concepts and made section 3 reflect these concepts.
> >>>>>> We think this may address PROV-ISSUE-46 [2].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please take a look and let us know what you think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note: Section 4 Provenance discovery service is still under heavy
> >>>>>> editing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> access.htm
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> l [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau
> >>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> >>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Professor Luc Moreau
> >> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> >> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> >> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 15:53:06 UTC