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

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:52:25 +0200
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <201105121352.28851.hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
On Thursday 12 May 2011 13:43:12 Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Olaf,
> 
> Ok I see your point. I've added a time to the conversion step as you
> suggested.

Thanks. I adjusted my example description accordingly.

Olaf

 
> cheers,
> Paul
> 
> Olaf Hartig wrote:
> > Hey Paul,
> > 
> > On Thursday 12 May 2011 10:16:14 Paul Groth wrote:
> >> Hi Olaf:
> >> 
> >> Interesting exercise. Thanks.
> >> 
> >>> 1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time at which
> >>> the different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted
> >>> corresponding statements in my description). Shouldn't the example
> >>> extended with such kind of information? For instance, the first
> >>> processing step could read: "government (gov) converts data (d1) to
> >>> RDF (f1) at time (t1)"
> >> 
> >> I think time is implicit in the example. I don't know if we need to make
> >> it explicit. It seems it would be tailoring the example to a
> >> representation language...
> > 
> > I don't see that.
> > 
> > If (some of) the processing steps were mentioning such a time, I would
> > have added corresponding  prv:performedAt  triples to my example
> > description. Since there were no such times, I omitted these triples
> > because I wanted the description to be as close to the textual
> > description as possible. What I want to say is, without such times we
> > cannot see whether a model/vocabulary would support representing them.
> > 
> >>> 2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle
> >>> serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it
> >>> felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server.
> >>> Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must
> >>> use an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step
> >>> 8. Should we add that to the example?
> >> 
> >> This is interesting. This is how I would want to model the example. But
> >> I think it's clear that our language would have to support notions
> >> exactly like "Alice downloaded a turtle file". This is the kind of
> >> provenance that people say all the time and I think it behoves us to
> >> figure out what we would need to support this kind of notion.
> > 
> > Got it.  ;-)   ... and I agree.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Olaf
> > 
> >>> 3.) Processing step 7 says "government (gov) publishes an update (d2)
> >>> of data (d1) as a new Web resource (r2)". That's inconsistent with
> >>> processing steps 1 and 3 where gov publishes a Web resource r1 with
> >>> RDF data f1 generated from d1. Question: Was it the intention that gov
> >>> now publishes d2 directly; wouldn't it be more consistent if gov were
> >>> publishing RDF data f2 which was obtained from d2?
> >> 
> >> Yes, I think this is an error. The government was supposed to follow the
> >> same steps in both cases just for consistency.
> >> 
> >> thanks,
> >> Paul
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:52:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:29 GMT