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

Re: Issue 89 - why?

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:52:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6yodafmur4PK1aU+hhmYWnKJ7+BAMJZ8LDqTjH6qgrY3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim and Graham,

>If we don't distinguish at all, we have a mess - a document and a version
> can't be distinguished if we can't >talk about fixed content and we'd then
> be unable to answer questions about when the document was >created (with the
> first version or only when the text was finalized).


I believe modeling a document d1 versus modeling versions of document d1v1,
d2v2 are two distinct notions. The d1v1 and d2v2 are specialized (maybe
subclass) notions of d1. Also, modeling concepts such as d1v1, d2v2 are not
required by all provenance applications.


>For example, OPMV avoids this whole issue by saying that the things to
which provenance are applied are >static [1].
The OPMV has used the original OPM Artifact definition and hence the OPM
notion of "static" Artifact.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> Jim,
>
>
> On 17/09/2011 16:15, Myers, Jim wrote:
>
>> Are you asking whether we need to distinguish between something and
>> 'something that can't change in some ways' to unambiguously record
>> provenance, or just whether frozen attributes is the best way to do that?
>>
>> If we don't distinguish at all, we have a mess - a document and a version
>> can't be distinguished if we can't talk about fixed content and we'd then be
>> unable to answer questions about when the document was created (with the
>> first version or only when the text was finalized).
>>
>
> Agreed, we need to be able to distinguish between the document and its
> "versions" for which some values about which we make provenance assertions
> are invariant.
>
>
>  (This is the problem with things - we don't always agree on what aspects
>> of a thing can change and still be recognizable as the same thing, so we
>> define entities for which the aspects that important relative to the
>> provenance we're recording are clearly changeable or not changeable, not
>> open to interpretation).
>>
>> If we consider the alternatives to fixing attributes, the most obvious
>> would be to stick the constraint in the type/class - as we do with document
>> and document-version. Either works, but you end up with a lot of type
>> proliferation. 'document-version<#>-at-**location<>-inEncoding<>-**withEncryption<>'
>> is well defined relative to moving, encoding and encryption changes, etc.
>> The alternative encoding is to fix the attributes. To me, the interpretation
>> should be the same in both cases - a version is really a different kind of
>> thing than a document even if we record it as document with a  fixed content
>> attribute. (The statue and other examples make this clearer).
>>
>
> I take a view that something may be a "version" of something else if it is
> asserted to be (*).  The important consequence of being such a "version" is
> that valid provenance assertions made with respect to these versions are
> permanent truths, and can they can be said to be about some aspect of the
> original resource.  Beyond that, why do we need to know what are the
> particular constraints for a particular "version"?
>
> I guess I'm trying to dodge the philosophical minefields about what
> constitutes identity.  I'm more concerned with what we need as a minimum to
> be able to record, exchange and do useful things with provenance
> information.
>
> It could be that I'm missing something important here, hence my original
> question being phrased as "what breaks?"
>
> ...
>
> You also raise what I see as a separate issue:  "a version is really a
> different kind of thing than a document".  In some senses, this is almost
> tautologically true, but from a perspective of ontologizing, I'm not sure
> it's useful.  Can versions have versions (I think so).  Then we are faced
> with a potentially infinite regress of types, or a type that can be
> reflexive (if that's an allowable use) with respect to the version
> relationship; i.e. a type that can be both range and domain of a "has
> version".  To me, the latter seems to be the simpler course, unless and
> until we find some essential functionality that is broken in such an
> approach.
>
> ...
>
> (*) of course, it may be of interest to others to understand what makes
> something a "version" of something else, and to understand the variant and
> invariant elements in detail.  I'm just asking if this needs to be part of
> the _provenance_ discussion, or if it can be treated separately.
>
> For example, OPMV avoids this whole issue by saying that the things to
> which provenance are applied are static [1].  This is enough for OPMV to be
> useful in a significant range of applications for provenance (I understand
> it is used in the current UK open gov data work).  I personally think that
> might be too strong a constraint, but if the price of relaxing that
> constraint is to wade into difficult philosophical territory, them I'm not
> so sure it's worth it.
>
> The fact that the things OPMV describes may be different versions of some
> underlying thing is simply not part of this particular ontology, and it
> seems to work OK so far.
>
> [1] http://open-biomed.**sourceforge.net/opmv/ns.html#**sec-specification<http://open-biomed.sourceforge.net/opmv/ns.html#sec-specification>- see sub-section on "Artifact"
>
> #g
> --
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 3:07 AM
>>> To: W3C provenance WG
>>> Subject: Issue 89 - why?
>>>
>>> I've been reading some of the discussion of Issue 89:
>>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/89<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/89>
>>>
>>> which seems to my mind be getting rather like a counting of angels-on-
>>> pinheads, and I wonder if we're not in danger of over-ontologizing here.
>>>
>>> Going back to the original issue, I see:
>>>
>>> [[
>>> The conceptual model defines an entity in terms of an identifier and a
>>> list of
>>> attribute-value pairs. It is indeed crucial for the asserter to identify
>>> the
>>> attributes that have been frozen in a given entity.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Why is it so crucial to identify what attributes have been frozen?
>>>
>>> What practical application of provenance is prevented is we don't require
>>> this?
>>>
>>> #g
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 18 September 2011 18:52:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT