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

RE: smaller example

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:16:23 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF2052ECC5A@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
A couple quick comments:

Is there a typo-level inconsistency in the description above? i4, and i5 are defined as the sendmail copies at the top, but the subsequent description seems to switch that to i3 and i5: i3 is generated by pe2, a copy process.

The two copies should be like i0/i1 there's a sense in which they are the file with name only and a sense in which their content matters as currently described. (Since there were no edit operations discussed for the copies, it was convenient to not list the i0 equivalent, but the copy did not produce a thing whose content doesn't matter.)

I think the example is OK, but it may be too simple to distinguish the IVPT versus IVP of T models. I'd suggest a 'minor' extension to consider the idea of the group's official list and have one of the copies become the official list (i.e. so that if i5 is edited to add two more cities, a query to get the latest version of the group's list returns a file with six cities in it, even though Alice's last copy of /home/towns.txt still has only 4). What I think this adds are enough perspectives to realize that we've got more than things and IVPTs - it adds perspectives where things need to function like IVPTs and where IVPTs look like things... (I think this has an analogy to the publication part of the larger example...). 

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Miles
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:51 AM
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: smaller example
> 
> 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 14:17:01 GMT

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