Re: PROV-ISSUE-189: Section 5.2.4 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

Hi Luc,
The updated description helps and I am fine with closing the issue at
present.

Can you please clarify, whether the note records are meta-provenance?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Satya,
>
> Text regarding attributes occurring in notes was changed as suggested.
> What do you think?
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
> On 08/12/11 09:48, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Satya,
>> Response interleaved.
>>
>> On 12/07/2011 02:00 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-189: Section 5.2.4 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/189<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/189>
>>>
>>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> The following are my comments for Section 5.2.4 of the PROV-DM (as on
>>> Nov 28):
>>>
>>> Section 5.2.4 Note Record
>>> 1. "Attribute-value pairs occurring in notes differ from attribute-value
>>> pairs occurring in entity records and activity records. In entity and
>>> activity records, attribute-value pairs must be a representation of
>>> something in the world, which remain constant for the duration of the
>>> characterization interval (for entity record) or the activity duration (for
>>> activity records). In note records, it is optional for attribute-value
>>> pairs to be representations of something in the world. If they are a
>>> representation of something in the world, then it may change value for the
>>> corresponding duration. If attribute-value pairs of a note record are a
>>> representation of something in the world that does not change, they are not
>>> regarded as determining characteristics of an entity or activity, for the
>>> purpose of provenance."
>>>
>>> Comments: The primary issue is - how is note record enabling provenance
>>> representation or interchange over and above the set of terms and relations
>>> defined by PROV-DM?
>>>
>>
>> I really see this as an annotation mechanism, to add extra information
>> over an existing set of records.
>> I think it's important to have it for interoperability, otherwise, we
>> have now easy way of enriching an exist provenance record.
>>
>>  If attribute-value pairs are determining characteristics of an Entity or
>>> Activity and also help in rendering them - are they not Note Record? For a
>>> common user or application, how do they determine if a set of
>>> attribute-value pairs are determining characteristics of an Entity or
>>> Activity? Would the original author of provenance assertions have to be
>>> around to convey this information to users or consumers of provenance
>>> information?
>>>
>>
>> I agree the text is not straightforward,.
>>
>> We were also trying to avoid the distinction between determining and
>> non-determining characteristic. So it needs rephrasing.
>>
>>
>> Maybe, we should write something:
>>
>> A note record associated with an entity record consist of attribute-value
>> pairs which may or may not represent the entity's situation in the world.
>> If a note record's attribute-value pair represents an entity's situation
>> is world, no requirement is made on this situation to be unchanged for the
>> entitys' characterization interval.
>>
>>  E.g.
>>> entity (e1, [resolution: 1080p, format: UTF-8])
>>> How does a user or software application intrepret that the attribute
>>> pairs [resolution: 1080p, format: UTF-8] are determining characteristics of
>>> e1 or not?
>>> Further, what is meant by "...something in the world"? Section 2.1.1
>>> describes world as "...the world (whether real or not), there are things,
>>> which can be physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise, and activities
>>> involving things." - so what IS something in the world and what is NOT
>>> something in the world?
>>>
>>>
>> resolution: 1080p, format: UTF-8 are supposed to hold during the duration
>> of the entity interval.
>>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Satya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>