W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

RE: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:27:19 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205468A3F@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think I've been viewing Bobs as 'like URIs' - coming at this from a WebDAV/content management viewpoint where one doesn't usually distinguish between the URI of the content+context and a URI for the content. You use one URI to get/set metadata (sounds like the document) and to get/set the content (the thing the URI represents if it is digital, or null if the represented thing is really a person, etc.).

Musing further - the challenge in using one URI for both is just the one we're facing with snapshot versus entity and defining Bobs. In a content system, one has to decide what the URI represents for operations such as signing - is it just the content, or the content and the current metadata (which could document mutable state - current ownership for example)?  The idea that you would just sign, or talk about the provenance of, the content only and then create new objects representing 'the original thing + more context/state/in fewer/different dimensions' when you need to sign/record provenance about those is then a way to deal with multiple views/perspectives. (I.e. one content Object's content is the other objects content plus some metadata)).

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim McCusker
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:45 AM
> To: Paolo Missier
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]
> 
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > I agree with Khalid,
> >  and at the same time I feel that there is lack of agreement on the
> > use of terms
> > - describe
> > - represents
> >
> > which I suspect is ultimately just a matter of terminology rather than
> > of deep substance.
> > I suggest that a specific issue on this be raised against the doc, as
> > it makes it sooo much easier to follow it (at least for me).
> 
> To me, "describes" and "represents" are pretty clear:
> 
> A URI can represent something. It, in itself, does not describe anything, since
> it's just a URI. A document can describe something, but does not represent
> anything. A URI can potentially represent the document you get when you
> dereference it, or it could represent the thing that is described when you
> dereference it. The document can usually clear that up (is that URI a
> foaf:Document or foaf:Person, for instance?).
> 
> The question is, is a BOB more like a document, or more like a URI? I had
> assumed it was more like a document, since people had been discussing how
> it would "contain" assertions sufficient to identify the entity in question.
> 
> Jim
> --
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
> 
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
> http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 14:28:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT