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

Re: writing a simple example in prov-o, help

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:59:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA7CBF1.6070203@vu.nl>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon,

The point is that two different people are asserting it. We can't 
maintain consistency across the people. This is why we have accounts, no?

I think one way to handle this is to have a best practice where we 
suggest people use permalinks (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permalink) or cool-uris.  Indeed, to me 
this is probably the best way to introduce entities.

So overall, my suggestion would be to maintain simplicity but suggest 
people use uris that refer to content that doesn't change.

But please bring this up in interoperability page.


Simon Miles wrote:
> Paul, all,
> Just to properly understand why what is being discussed is important,
> I wanted to expand your example to a larger use case.
> At time T, you say something about a video on your blog and assert:
> <http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/why-provenance-is-fundamental-for-people/>
> prov:wasDerivedFrom
> <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html>.
> At time T+1, the video is edited to introduce a previously missing
> segment that undermines the message of your blog entry. The video URI
> stays the same.
> At time T+2, I say something about the (updated) video on my blog and assert:
> <http://inkings.org/2011/10/08/why-provenance-is-pointless/>
> prov:wasDerivedFrom
> <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html>.
> We could then observe:
>   - Even if the above use case doesn't happen to you, by using the
> simplest form of provenance you are opening the possibility of it
> happening and you would not even know about it.
>   - It doesn't help to say that the video owners shouldn't use the same
> URL, because it is not under the control of either those creating or
> consuming the provenance.
>   - There is nothing apparently wrong with either of our assertions
> (except the lack of characterisation), and I don't know anything about
> your blog so don't take it into account in my blog's provenance.
>   - It seems reasonable criteria for interoperability that if you read
> Prov-DM from two separate sources referring to the same entity, then
> either there is an error in (at least) one or they are mutually
> consistent. I couldn't see what this would correspond to in the
> interoperability discussion [1] though.
> Thanks,
> Simon
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Interoperability
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 09:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:10 UTC