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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:03:48 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f595548a43d55cd9d3debf615b31f2cdn5SB3p08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E0AF884.5000503@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon,
I think it is absolutely fine for the WG to say that something in
the charter was considered, but found not appropriate, dropped
or revised. But we need to record this.
Luc

On 06/29/2011 10:42 AM, Simon Miles wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> OK. I'm fine with your definition if the group considers we need one.
>
> As a more general point, I'm unclear about the restrictions of the
> standardisation process. Is there no way to say "this proposal in the
> charter was considered, but was decided to be ambiguous and/or
> superfluous"? Otherwise, WGs must risk producing standards which are
> compliant to the letter of their charters, rather than good and easy
> to adopt. Where we can say less, there is less for people to read,
> misinterpet and disagree with.
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
> On 28 June 2011 17:30, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> If we agree with the definition I suggested (possible Jim's too, I am
>> not sure), it shows that version (or is revision of) is not a primitive
>> notion in PIL, but can be derived from more primitive concepts.
>>
>> I think we still need to take a view on this concept, since it is part
>> of the charter,
>> and we can't simply ignore it.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/28/2011 03:36 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
>>      
>>> 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
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> --
>> 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
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
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
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:04:15 GMT

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