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 10:35:40 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f604e64b651d3148ad1c632f4edffa68o15AZh08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F2FACFC.5080009@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

You will remember that in the F2F2 paq session (before we decided to 
remove account records from the data model),
I already flagged the need of being able to retrieve the provenance of 
an entity in a given account.

This need is reinforced now, since account records are in the process of 
being removed from DM.

By saying less as you suggest, I feel that we can't implement the PAQ.

Luc



On 02/06/2012 10:10 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Well, the normal retrieval protocol (via simple HTTP GET) will only 
> work with dereferencable URIs, pretty much by construction.  (The 
> query service may do better, but I think that's a different issue.)
>
> Your original concern, as I understood it (*), was that with accounts 
> removed from the data model, you were concerned that we should have a 
> way to refer to bundles of provenance via PAQ, and I was pointing out 
> that you can.  I don't think there's any case here for changing the 
> protocol functionality in light of changes to the model.
>
> The use of a URI to refer to a provenance resource can work 
> independently of whether that resource is retrievable, but it may be 
> of limited value in the absence of retrievability.
>
> I think this is an area where, for the time being, we should say less 
> rather than more.  When the RDF core group comes through with a 
> position on graph resources, we can re-evaluate.
>
> #g
> -- 
>
> (*) "... assumes the existence of a mechanism (outside the PROV-DM) by 
> which bundles of records/assertions can be given a name."
>
>
> On 06/02/2012 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 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 10:36:24 GMT

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