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

Re: prov-issue-11: what is version?

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:36:45 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTim3rHG6R5Ar6VQ1bVEdL3gN4Ss+8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
OK, but I think that defining it generally even in a profile may go
too far. Given that "version" means quite different things in
different application contexts, as I think you capture by the notion
of typed process executions in your definition, is there a value in
defining it generally at all? I could imagine it may be defined in
various ways in a few different domain-specific profiles, and there
could be a mappings from the PIL model to version in DC and elsewhere
etc., but defining it as part of the model seems to help no-one while
adding to the complexity. This differs from time, where though it has
different conceptions in different domains, I could imagine a default
conception defined in a profile would be useful for applying the model
to common kinds of web resource.

Thanks,
Simon

On 28 June 2011 15:25, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:
> I was just trying to use version as an example of IVP in the last email, hence it shouldn't be different. Looking at whether we need version explicitly as a concept - perhaps it is a 'profile' like time...
>
>  Jim
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Miles
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:18 AM
>> To: Provenance Working Group WG
>> Subject: Re: prov-issue-11: what is version?
>>
>> Luc, Jim,
>>
>> I notice that you two take different views on what the concept "version" is
>> intended to describe. With the example things:
>>   T1. The government data
>>   T2. The government data with incorrect values
>>   T3. The government data with corrected values Under Luc's definition T3 is
>> a version of T2, but under Jim's definition T3 is a version of T1.
>>
>> I'm not clear that "version", under either definition, is beneficial to keep in
>> the model. Jim's definition seems to be only subtley if at all different from
>> IPVT, while Luc's is distinct but just a simple composition of other concepts
>> which could be recognised by any query.
>>
>> My counter-proposal would be to remove "version" from the model.
>> Simplicity of the standard is surely a good thing where possible.
>>
>> If that is unacceptable, I think that Luc's definition makes sense but would
>> be more clearly called "is revision of" or similar.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 27 June 2011 16:11, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Exploiting the  most recent definitions of Derivation and IVP of, I
>> > tried to propose a definition of version.
>> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptVersion#Definition_by_Luc
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> > Regards,
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ________
>> > 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Tuesday, 28 June 2011 14:37:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:32 GMT