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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-233 (paq-dm-and-accounts?): If not in DM, should there be some form of account support in the paq? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:26:18 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c01847e1005d30a267552ed05da2b4ddo159QL08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F2F9CBA.1090308@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham,
If it's the role of provenance-uri, fine, but we have to make sure that 
the protocol
can work with provenance-uris that are not dereferenceable.
For instance, we should be able to support "names" of bundles that are a 
UUID uri.
Thanks,
Luc

On 02/06/2012 08:49 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I think it's effectively already there.  When PAQ talks about a 
> "provenance resource", that effectively *is* a bundle of provenance, 
> which may have a URI, and about which provenance can be asserted.  I 
> don't think more is needed.
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>
> On 05/02/2012 17:12, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-233 (paq-dm-and-accounts?): If not in DM, should there be 
>> some form of account support in the paq? [Accessing and Querying 
>> Provenance]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/233
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>
>> I am raising this issue against the paq, but really, this is a paq/dm 
>> issue.
>>
>> At F2F2, we have decided to simplify PROV-DM, by dropping the notion 
>> of AccountRecord from the data model. It should simplify the DM since 
>> we no longer have this notion of scope, which was challenging.
>>
>> I anticipate the prov-DM will now say that it assumes the existence 
>> of a mechanism (outside the PROV-DM) by which bundles of 
>> records/assertions can be given a name.
>>
>> The PR0V-DM used to offer a RecordContainer and the ability to 
>> package up accounts in such containers, such that multiple accounts 
>> could be returned when retrieving provenance for an entity-uri. A 
>> client was then able to sift through the container, and find whatever 
>> it was looking for, possibly multiple entity records for entity-uri 
>> in various accounts.  All that was possible without having to discuss 
>> accounts in the PAQ document.
>>
>> Now, this facility has gone.
>>
>> So the question is: how do we find what is being said about a given 
>> entity-uris in multiple "bundles/accounts"?
>>
>> PS. At F2F2 meeting, we discuss the requirement to support the 
>> provenance of provenance. I think we also have to record multiple 
>> accounts of what happened to an entity (even by a same provider!).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 09:27:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:54 GMT