- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:37:39 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul, OK, thanks. I've put your revised definition and our notes up on the Wiki (and taken the liberty of saying it is proposed by us jointly). Please edit to clarify or if I misrepresent you. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptViewsOrAccounts Comments from others are very welcome! Thanks, Simon On 31 May 2011 16:25, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > I agree with you. I think the key thing is to realize that provenance is > asserted by one or more entities (sources?) and thus is an account of > the state of the world. > > I don't think we should be forced to identify these identies. However, > each account should have an identifier. > > Paul > > Simon Miles wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> Thanks for the comments. Answers are interleaved. >> >>> I was wondering why an account must be from one source. >> >> Just because it seemed most intuitive, but maybe an account could have >> multiple sources, as long as we are clear what that would mean. >> >> If we meant multiple actors may agree with an account and wouldn't >> describe what occurred any differently from the same perspective, then >> that's true but there would still be one actor which originally >> provided the account. >> >> If we meant that multiple actors may be "co-authors" of an account, >> that would be more reasonable. I guess I was considering such a group >> as a single source, but I agree this may not be the clearest way to >> define things. Of course, an account can have a its own provenance >> where it can be specified in detail who contributed what and how. >> >>> I think a source maybe an annotation on an account. >> >> That's an issue separate from concept definition, surely. "Annotation" >> applies to some data (a serialised account), and "annotating with a >> source" requires having an identifier for the source, which my >> definition of account does not require. >> >>> I think a more general definition would be. >>> - An account is a record of something that has occurred from a >>> particular perspective. >> >> I'm fine with that definition. It still feels like the definition >> implies rather than makes explicit something significant, i.e. that >> the account comes from one or a group of sources, but I don't have a >> strong argument why it needs to be explicit. >> >>> I agree with the notion that every description of some occurrence must >>> be part of an account but I don't think that needs to be identified. >> >> Again, I think this goes beyond the concept definition to design >> decisions, but maybe we can't separate the two. It depends what you >> mean by "identified" as to whether I agree with you :-). >> >> If you mean that there doesn't need to be any metadata about the >> account(s) each occurrence is referred to in, such as the source of >> the account, then I agree it may be too much to require. >> >> But if you mean that we may not be able to distinguish whether two >> assertions about what has occurred are from the same source and >> perspective or not (i.e. same accounts or not), then I'm not convinced >> - it seems to go against the purpose of providing provenance to aid >> trust and interpretation to lose such distinctions. >> >> Further, if you provide no identifier for an account, then don't you >> lose (or make much harder) the possibility of providing metadata about >> it in the future? So, I would argue that all occurrences, assertions, >> or whatever parts comprise provenance information, should be part of >> at least one account, and that those accounts should be given >> identifiers, even if no other information about the account is >> provided. >> >> Thanks, >> Simon >> >>> thoughts? >>> Paul >>> >>> Simon Miles wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> My proposed starting definition: >>>> - An account is a record of something that has occurred provided by >>>> one source and taking one perspective in describing what occurred. >>>> >>>> Notes: >>>> - I would expect the provenance of a resource (or whatever provenance >>>> is of) to comprise a set of accounts or parts of accounts, as all the >>>> information within that provenance has to come from somewhere and take >>>> some perspective. >>>> - The definition does not require that the source be identified - >>>> whether we require it to be seems a design decision not part of >>>> concept definition. >>>> - The same occurrence (e.g. a "resource" or "process execution") >>>> could be referred to in multiple accounts. I would expect it to be >>>> decision of the account sources whether they are referring to the same >>>> thing in their assertions. >>>> - "Perspective" could be rephrased as something more concrete. An >>>> example of perspective (from OPM) is the granularity of description: >>>> whether what has occurred is described coarsely or in detail. However, >>>> there may be other useful distinctions in perspective. >>>> - Every occurrence included in some provenance data would be part of >>>> at least one account (if it had not been documented, it could not be >>>> included). This may be a distinction from OPM, where I believe >>>> entities can be included in provenance without being in an account. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> On 20 May 2011 08:38, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-15 (define-views-or-account): Definition for Concept 'Views or accounts' [Provenance Terminology] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/15 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: Provenance Terminology >>>>> >>>>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Views or accounts' as a core concept of the provenance interchange language to be standardized (see http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >>>>> >>>>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Views or accounts'? >>>>> How do we define the concept 'Views or accounts'? >>>>> Where does concept 'Views or accounts' appear in ProvenanceExample? >>>>> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Views or accounts'? >>>>> >>>>> Wiki page:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptViewsOrAccounts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >>>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> >> >> >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > 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, 31 May 2011 15:38:07 UTC