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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:59:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0B13A9.4060804@ninebynine.org>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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"?

Yes, I think it's just fine for us to do that.

#g
--


... 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
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 12:59:41 GMT

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