W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-331 (review-dm-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-dm wd5 [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:46:50 +0000
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8a9bef87e05e813b823007e6f4fdc7c4o3A5ky08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|60A506BC-540C-4946-B628-6C84405292FA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Tracker, this is ISSUE-29.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 11 Apr 2012, at 02:42, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:


46)

"Wherever two people describe the provenance of a same thing,
one cannot expect them to coordinate and agree on the identifiers to use to denote that thing."

* we are nose diving back to owl:sameAs with this ^^

* The example is reasonable (date-specific URI versus non)



47)

"To allow for identifiers to be chosen freely and independently by each  user, the PROV data model introduces relations
that allow entities  to be linked together.
The following two relations are introduced for expressing  specialized or alternate entities."

^^ this does not convey the "levels of detail" aspect well enough - it emphasizes too much on the "choose your own URI" wild west of the web.



48)

References and Things should not be involved in defining specialization. We've just pushed the "Thing vs. Entity" argument into specialization.

"An entity is a specialization
 of another if they refer to some common thing but the former is a more
constrained entity than the latter. The common thing do not need to be
identified. "
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 04:47:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT