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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:07:01 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|390a08b87b1ad153eec72151ec0cceceo0P97508L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F2117B5.70900@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon,

Response interleaved.

On 01/25/2012 04:56 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
> 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
>    
yes, it's how i see it too.
> 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).
>    
yes.
> +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.
>
>    

OK

> 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.
>
>    

Being identifiable would indeed be a burden.

Luc

> 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
>>>        
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:07:35 UTC

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