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: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:24:57 +0000
Message-ID: <4F325B89.2080202@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Works for me.

(At least I now think I understand better the thrust of what Luc is asking for, 
viz. access to provenance keyed by entity id *and* account id.)

#g
--


On 08/02/2012 10:56, Paul Groth wrote:
> Graham, Luc:
>
> I think we should keep this issue open. I think the process should be as follows:
>
> 1) We agreed to revise or look at the service spec in the draft. This needs to
> be done first.
> 2) Once this revision is done, we should address this issue in particular with
> respect to a revised DM.
>
> Otherwise, we are making changes against two things that are not yet fixed.
> Let's not premature in either discounting issues or making changes to address them.
>
> Is that ok?
> Paul
>
>
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> On 02/08/2012 10:31 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> Luc,
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2012 10:01, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> Hi graham
>>>>
>>>> In short, to be able to retrieve prov from a service with the
>>>> following parameters:
>>>>
>>>> Http;//service/endpoint&entity=...&account=...
>>> Hmmm, I think this is mostly covered by
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#retrieve-provenance-information-for-a-resource
>>>
>>> (section 4.1.2).
>>
>> The service specification, as currently defined, only has one parameter
>> (uri).
>> My request is that we should have a second parameter (account).
>>
>> Of course, then, we need to look at ways of obtaining it.
>>>> And have a mechanism to pass account ids.
>>> This is the bit that I have trouble with. What is this "account id"?
>>> I think it's really inappropriate to introduce it as a concept in PAQ
>>> because it's been dropped from DM.
>>
>> Not exactly.
>> What is being dropped in prov-dm is AccountRecord a construct that
>> bundles up records *as part of the data model*.
>> We have agreed that the bundling up is now done outside the data model.
>>
>> However, having named a bundle with a URI (with whatever mechanism we
>> choose), we need to be able to express its
>> provenance. It's then useful to have a subtype of entity (accountEntity
>> or similar) for this very purpose.
>> It will be in the working copy Paolo and I are currently working on.
>>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> There is nothing in the specification that *prevents* you doing any of
>>> this, but if the notion of account isn't part of the provenance model
>>> it is bound to be a "private use" convention (which may become widely
>>> used and a later candidate for standardization).
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think an appropriate way forward here would be to prepare a separate
>>> document that covers the concept of accounts, account IDs and service
>>> extensions to access provenance keyed by account. This could be a
>>> candidate for a WG NOTE (which we were told at F2F the WG may choose
>>> to issue without reference to the charter).
>>>
>>> Which leaves me still inclined to close this "wontfix".
>>>
>>> #g
>>> --
>>>
>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>> University of Southampton
>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Feb 2012, at 08:35, "Graham Klyne"<Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>
>>>>> I find that don't really know what you are asking for here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that either:
>>>>> (a) you make a more concrete proposal that we can consider, or
>>>>> (b) I close the issue "wontfix"
>>>>>
>>>>> In judging any new proposal, I would expect to apply the "razor" we
>>>>> agreed in the F2F, in that if the proposal is not readily consensual
>>>>> then we should err on the side of under-specification rather than
>>>>> over-specification. Generally, I think we should now be looking to
>>>>> remove material from the documents rather than add it.
>>>>>
>>>>> #g
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2012 14:53, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>>> Then all bets are off beyond what you already know..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do you mean paq could be a general URI resolver?
>>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012 11:40 AM, "Luc Moreau"<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Stian,
>>>>>>> Sure, but what happens when accounts are identified by UUIDs ...
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/07/2012 10:08 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:35, Luc
>>>>>>>> Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I already flagged the need of being able to retrieve the
>>>>>>>>> provenance of an
>>>>>>>>> entity in a given account.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you know the account/"provenance resource" URI, just fetch it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, then the PAQ will tell you about the provenance resources
>>>>>>>> ("accounts") that it knows about. You can fetch them individually
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> choose yourself how you would like to separate or merge them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 11:28:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT