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

Re: Votes (deadline Thursday noon, GMT): ISSUE-225, objects in the Universe of discourse

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:56:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKc1nHckFGOzz9wEW9b3r3vvCs4BQDfSp1JB_Es02hkrhry-rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
As with Khalid, I'm still a little unsure, but for the sake of making
progress, I vote:

+1 Proposal 1
+1 Proposal 2
+1 Proposal 3
+1 Proposal 4

+1 Proposal 5
+1 Proposal 6
+1 Proposal 7
I interpret Proposal 5 to mean that things are not in the universe of
discourse separately from them being viewed as entities, and accept it
on this basis. It is only in being entities that they must be
identifiable (as per Proposal 1). A record is a thing, and so if
Proposal 5 is accepted, so is Proposal 6, i.e. a record can have
documented provenance but only if we view it as an entity. Similarly,
a note is a thing (Proposal 7).

+1 Proposal 8
As I understand, event ordering constraints are like physical laws
that are not within PROV-DM data but can be used to judge whether what
is described is realistic. If so, I agree that they are not part of
the universe of discourse, but are things (as with records and notes
above), in that their provenance *could* be documented or they could
be part of some other entity's provenance.

0 Proposal 9
This seems less intuitive and I'm not yet convinced. Attributes seem
to be of the same kind as entities, events, derivations etc., in that
they are what is asserted to have existed in the past. Is the reason
they are treated differently because they are too fine-grained and
numerous to require identifiers for them all? If so, it makes more
sense to me to say attributes are part of the universe of discourse
but excluded from the requirement to be identifiable.

Thanks,
Simon

On 25 January 2012 16:25, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> +1 from my part too.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> 2012/1/25 Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> as discussed, I agree with all the points below
>>
>> -Paolo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/12 3:38 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> 24h to go. We are trying to use the outcome of this vote to structure
>> tomorrow's call.
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 01/24/2012 01:56 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Paul and I have a strong desire to resolve the issue related to
>> identifiers before F2F2.
>>
>> For information, we agreed on the following last week:
>>     *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all
>> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and
>> otherwise)     SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an
>> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects
>> described." (intent)
>>
>> So, the next challenge (ISSUE-225) is to agree on the objects that belong
>> to universe of discourse.
>> To facilitate the call on Thursday, we are putting forward a series of
>> proposals. Can
>> you express your support or not in the usual manner.   On Thursday we
>> will  discuss
>> proposals for which we didn't reach consensus.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>>
>> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
>> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
>> discourse
>>
>> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains,
>> Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation,
>> Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After
>> removal belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
>> discourse
>>
>> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
>>             This includes Account Record.
>>
>> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse
>>   Note
>>
>> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse
>>
>> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of
>> discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
>> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
>> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:57:46 UTC

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