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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-19: is this observable or not observable?

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:09:10 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|def01db5337460198327290044c40168n5789J08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DEF2016.1020400@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Graham,

The reason why I raised the issue is that over the WE, when discussing 
with Kai, this
notion of observability popped up. I think Jim also mentioned it in 
another thread (apologies,
if I got it wrong).  In all fairness, I thought we had to discuss this.

Given that we have indicated that we want to track the provenance of 
things, which may
be physical, digital, CONCEPTUAL or otherwise, I don't know what 
observability means
when things are conceptual.

I take note of Carl's pointers to definitions of observability in the 
physical world.

I would argue that even in the digital world, observability is not 
straightforward.  In the provenance
challenge, we have seen techniques instrumenting code, i.e. adding 
constructs to record provenance.
In that case, can we say the system observed what was happening? or was 
it programmed to
record provenance synchronously with its execution?

Regards,
Luc


On 07/06/11 12:06, Graham Klyne wrote:
> May I suggest we see if this is an issue in light of the proposed 
> definitions?
>
> #g
> -- 
>
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> When we discussed the notion of 'Invariant View or Perspective on a 
>> Thing, there were
>> suggestions that it should be observable, and counter-suggestions 
>> that it should not be.
>>
>> It would be good to discuss both sides of the argument, in an attempt 
>> to reach consensus.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 07:09:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT