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

Re: Towards PROV-O Accounts

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:34:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4F05608D.4000108@ninebynine.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

I took a quick look at this (your [1]), and I was OK with the basic structure 
used, but I'm not understanding why there is so much focus on a name for the 
abstract triples as opposed to a user-supplied name.

I'm guessing this may be related to a similar issue with digital signatures over 
RDG graphs.  There has been work to apply such signatures to some 
canonicalization or abstraction of the graph, but I don't see the necessity.  In 
the real world, when one signs a document, one signs a *particular rendering* of 
the document, and said signature can be used as evidence for agreement to the 
abstract content of same.

I see something similar applying to account graph assertions:  if a user asserts 
an account graph, they assert a *particular instance* (or maybe several) of that 
graph.  If one trusts that user, then one may license inferences based on the 
abstract content of the graph, and by extension inferences based on semantically 
equivalent graph instances, but that's a separate issue IMO.

Why do I care about this?  I think that the essential nature of using named 
graphs to control the scope of what provenance accounts are actually being 
asserted (or treated as asserted for some purposes of provenance analysis) is 
confused and muddied by the discussion of different graph instances and abstract 
graph content.

#g
--

PS: I don't know if it's at all relevant, but I made some personal notes a long 
time ago about issues around using contexts for scoping assertions:

   http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html

(It's kind of dated now; I use the term "formulae", from Notation3, to mean 
roughly what we mean by named graphs.)


On 05/01/2012 03:35, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> prov-wg,
>
> I have been working on some discussion [1] that is relevant to modeling Accounts in PROV-O.
>
> It is incomplete, but I think ready for some initial feedback.
>
> Modeling accounts is on the agenda for tomorrow's telecon [2], so I hope this can provide some discussion material.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_graphs_to_model_Accounts
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 09:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC