# Re: smaller example

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:57:11 +0000
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
CC: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c55a03d9b89506f06416ca64a7d495acn5F3vf08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|757B9E69-3FC3-4DD1-9AF7-9DDEA5C81E72@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
```Hi Satya,

In the File example, "content" is a mutable property for i0, whereas it is immutable for i1. It is integral to the identity of i1.

i1 is an invariant view/perspective of i0.

This should answer your first concern at least.

Regards

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 16 Jun 2011, at 02:57, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu<mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:

Hi Jim,
I wanted to clarify the following point:
> * there is/are mutable property(ies) of A that is/are correspond to
immutable property(ies) of B (i.e. ones that are integral to B's
identity)

If a set of property(s) are integral to B's identity (and immutable), while they are mutable for A - are these property(s) integral to A's identity also?
Case I: If they are integral to A's identity I am not sure how can they be mutable, else

Case II: If they are not integral then how can A and B represent the same entity/part of the world (at any specific point in time) since the set of identifying property(s) of two identical entities will also be identical?

> * If B is an IVP of A, they must have the same values for all immutable
properties they have in common (for their entire existences...).
Agree (identifying property(s) of an entity cannot change without changing the identity of the entity)

>* The distinction between A and B becomes relevant when one is
discussing processes that affect the aspects of entity state represented
by the subset of properties that represent the shift of some aspect of
state from mutable in A to immutable in B.
This point does not follow from the previous point. Can we say that A and B share mutable property(s) that have different values hence accounting for the different perspectives/views?

This is a general point: I have tried to follow the discussion threads, both the original thread on IVPT and the subsequent thread on Luc's smaller example, but unfortunately I am still not sure how the IVPT concept is applicable to the current data journalism example.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Myers, Jim <<mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>MYERSJ4@rpi.edu<mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>> wrote:
FYI - Luc and I had a Skype call this morning to discuss a path forward
on how to address invariance and we have tried to combine aspects of
both alternatives from the working group discussion in a way that
hopefully works and can gain consensus. A few more details below, but
the general path is to model with one type of thing (ala IVP of T) but
to push the definition of that type of thing to be independent of
processes (ala IVPT). The question for the group is then whether this
makes sense/looks like it helps/is consistent with other views/should be
elucidated further, etc.

Cheers,
Jim

The following is my embellishment of what Luc and I discussed -
hopefully still consistent with our discussion :-) I expect some further
refinement will be needed to nail everything down.

Definition of 'thing': In PIL, entities in the real world (described in
terms of physical, digital, logical, conceptual, other vocabularies) are
modeled as "things" that:
* have an identity
* model aspects of the entity's state as a set of properties of the
"thing" that are invariant and considered integral to identity
* model other aspects of the entity's state as a second set of
properties that are mutable and able to change during the "thing"'s
lifecycle, and therefore not integral to identity

There are no assumptions that the sets of properties are complete as
documented, or that the properties are independent/orthogonal of each
other.

Definition of "invariant view/perspective" (IVP):

For A and B, both of which are "things", B is an  IVP of A iff
* A and B represent the same entity/part of the real world at some
instant in time (the set of properties they share must have identical
values at that instant), and
* there is/are mutable property(ies) of A that is/are correspond to
immutable property(ies) of B (i.e. ones that are integral to B's
identity)

These definitions then have a number of implications:
* If B is an IVP of A, they must have the same values for all immutable
properties they have in common (for their entire existences...).
* The distinction between A and B becomes relevant when one is
discussing processes that affect the aspects of entity state represented
by the subset of properties that represent the shift of some aspect of
state from mutable in A to immutable in B. If B is an IVP of A at time
t, B is an IVP of A is true for the whole interval between processes of
this type.

Etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org> public-prov-wg-request@w3.org<mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-prov-wg-<mailto:public-prov-wg->
> <mailto:request@w3.org> request@w3.org<mailto:request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:35 AM
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: smaller example
>
> 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>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>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0069.html
> [3] <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FileExample> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FileExample
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487<tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865<tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> United Kingdom                     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
```
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 02:58:26 GMT

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