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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:48:02 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|94f09627f198767954ef9a3ac461a9afn6SCmA08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E329DF2.5030804@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham,

On 07/29/2011 10:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> I either don't understand or don't agree with the second part of that
> description.  The notion of assigning values as party of an assertion
> seems wrong to me (I think the notion of constraining attributes is
> the job of the IVP-of relation).  I would expect something like:
>
> [[ A provenance assertion is made at a particular point and is
> invariant, in the sense that the attributes it mentions do not change
> for the entity concerned.  ]]
>
>    

Another important point you raise, at the heart of the model.

First I believe the draft is inline with all discussions and wiki pages 
on this context.

Are you saying that, in the proposed example, that you would have BOBs 
of the form:

bob(id, [ type, location, creator, content])

where type/location/creator/content are attributes, but no value 
specified for them.

To me, what you propose here is more akin to a type/class declaration, 
and not so much of a snapshot/state/BOB,
as characterized by an asserter.

How would you rewrite this example with your notion of BOB?

Luc

-- 
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 Friday, 29 July 2011 11:48:36 GMT

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