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

Re: smaller example

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:51:09 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimn6zDZytyf7WYjY1UNtPvZC7jx1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc,

I think the example is helpful, and I suggest the discussion at the
end suggests that "invariant view or perspective on a thing" is not
quite right. All of i0, i1, i2, i3, i4 and i5 are more obviously
things than views: a file, or a file with some content, or the content
of a message.

Instead, I suggest we mean "thing which is invariant from some
perspective", i.e. what we are talking about when referring to i0-i5
is the thing, not the view.

They are all invariant in some way. For i1 to i5 they are invariant
from the perspective of their content, at very least. For i0, it is
invariant from the perspective of its identity, i.e. the reason why we
talk about i0 as a thing at all is that it is consistently
(invariantly) considered the same file even if its contents are
changed.

I suggest i0 can be included in the Mapping as follows:
"We have some Abstractions I -> I:
i1 -> i0
i2 -> i0
i3 -> i0"
(meaning the abstraction of i1 is i0 etc.) Jim used the term
"abstraction" in his proposal for "resource" definition, but other
terms may be as good.

Thanks,
Simon

On 13 June 2011 10:37, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> PROV-ISSUE-1
> PROV-ISSUE-8
> PROV-ISSUE-19
>
> On June 7th [1], we agreed on "In a first instance, to define the
> necessary concepts
> that allow us  to express the provenance of an invariant view or
> perspective on a thing".
> Putting this in practice turns out to be difficult.
>
> While the egg example is interesting, the scenario seems to evolve all
> the time. Also, I
> thought that, in a first instance, we may want to look at things that
> are digital, before
> seeing how our ideas extend to the non-digital world.
>
> Obviously, we have our data journalism example, but we seem to ignore. I
> think that we ignore
> it because:
> - it does not focus on changing things
> - it is not precise about how information is published/access,
> - it is quite long
> (I liked what Simon proposed for this example [2] and this inspired me here)
>
>
> To unblock the situation, I have:
> - drafted a smaller example [3], focusing on a file being updated
> - tried to illustrate examples of IVPTs in this example
> - highlighted an example of IVPT that I don't know how to handle.
>
> In this example, it would be good to see
> - where we have consensus
> - where we have disagreement
> - how we handle the outstanding example (i0) of IVPT
>
> Feedback by email or on wiki welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0096.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0069.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FileExample
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 13:51:38 GMT

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