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

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:38:51 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikz98Z+icLZJOMk8KZ6+hU73Vu5PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
(apologies if you receive this twice - the first send does not seem to
have worked).

Following the points below, I'd like to clarify something minor
(though possibly important for our mapping to other vocabs such as
Dublin Core).

The example says "government (gov) publishes RDF data (f1) along with
its provenance (prov) on a portal with a license (li1); the rdf data
is now available as a Web resource (r1)" (and similarly for f2/r2)

But what does it mean for f1 to be "published" as opposed to being
"made available" as r1?  Is f1 something uniquely identifiable,
accessible, and for which anyone can ask the provenance, or not?  What
distinction is being drawn?

Thanks,
Simon

Luc:
> Paul:
>> Olaf:
- Hide quoted text -
>>> 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.
>
> Again, provenance is not supposed to always describe all the steps.  The
> presentation
> was a bit shortened (probably due to the laziness of the authors ;-),
> but is still acceptable
> provenance.  The detailed version makes explicit the succession d2  f2  r2
>
> Luc


On 12 May 2011 09:38, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/05/11 09:16, Paul Groth wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Again, provenance is not supposed to always describe all the steps.  The
> presentation
> was a bit shortened (probably due to the laziness of the authors ;-),
> but is still acceptable
> provenance.  The detailed version makes explicit the succession d2  f2  r2
>
> Luc
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Wednesday, 18 May 2011 07:39:19 GMT

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