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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:39:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4F994208.5010706@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham

you have made your point on this over and over again. I think we get it, but I still don't see a strong argument. That is because 
the criteria used to define the scope here have been blurry and that has not improved with time.
The comments that followed my own personal opinion on this (attached) seem to indicate that capturing the evolution of sets may be a 
good idea, given their pervasiveness. If this belongs to a specific domain, which domain is it?

But I am sorry that you are having to hold your nose. Believe me, the provenance of a set doesn't smell that bad.

Regards,
  -Paolo



  On 4/26/12 12:04 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I find myself somewhat concerned by what appears to be scope creep associated
> with collections.  It seems to me that in the area, the provenance model is
> straying in the the domain of application design.  If collections were just
> sets, I could probably hold my nose and say nothing, but this talk of having
> provenance define various forms of collection indexing seems to me to be out of
> scope.
>
> So I think this is somewhat in agreement with what Satya says here, though I
> remain unconvinced that the notions of collections and derivation-by-insertion,
> etc., actually *need* to be in the main provenance ontology - why not let
> individual applications define their own provenance extension terms?
>
> #g
> --
>
> On 18/04/2012 17:35, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The issue I had raised last week is that collection is an important
>> provenance construct, but the assumption of only key-value pair based
>> collection is too narrow and the relations derivedByInsertionFrom,
>> Derivation-by-Removal are over specifications that are not required.
>>
>> I have collected the following examples for collection, which only require
>> the definition of the collection in DM5 (collection of entities) and they
>> don't have (a) a key-value structure, and (b) derivedByInsertionFrom,
>> derivedByRemovalFrom relations are not needed:
>> 1. Cell line is a collection of cells used in many biomedical experiments.
>> The provenance of the cell line (as a collection) include, who submitted
>> the cell line, what method was used to authenticate the cell line, when was
>> the given cell line contaminated? The provenance of the cells in a cell
>> line include, what is the source of the cells (e.g. organism)?
>>
>> 2. A patient cohort is a collection of patients satisfying some constraints
>> for a research study. The provenance of the cohort include, what
>> eligibility criteria were used to identify the cohort, when was the cohort
>> identified? The provenance of the patients in a cohort may include their
>> health provider etc.
>>
>> Hope this helps our discussion.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jun and Satya,
>>>
>>> Following today's call, ACTION-76 [1] and ACTION-77 [2] were raised
>>> against you, as we agreed.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/actions/76<https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/76>
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/actions/77<https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/77>
>>>
>>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier


attached mail follows:


Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:40:05 GMT

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