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 09:29:28 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0d315f82c5dea773a7accc1b9372be5bo0P9YV08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F211CF8.9070500@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

Responses interleaved.

On 01/25/2012 06:40 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Since the proposals are not mutually exclusive, I'll assume you're 
> asking for views (or votes) on each of the proposals separately..
> On 24/01/2012 13:56, 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.
> +1
>> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
>> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
>> discourse
> No clear view; what's the driving use-case?

In precise derivation, we need to refer to usage/generation events.

>> 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.
> I'm inclined to say not, but I'm not sure I understand the proposal

Can I turn the proposal into a question: in the prov-o ontology, I think we
are going to have a class QualifiedDerivation (TBC). An instance of 
will it be an object of the universe of discourse?
>> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
>> discourse
> -1
> These seem to me to be statements *about* things in the domain of 
> discourse.

If I understand correctly, you say, it's *about* a thing in the domain 
of discourse,
but not a thing itself.

> Or do  misunderstand the intent?
>> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
>> This includes Account Record.
> +1
>> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse
> -0  That is, my sense is that the term "thing" is used to capture an 
> intuition all records ultimately describe facets of "things" in the 
> real world, but the formalization is in terms of entities.  It is not 
> clear to me whether or not "thing" needs to be formally distinguished, 
> or whether it's just there to provide the guiding intuition.
> But if we find that we do need to make statements about "things" as 
> well as "entities", then my vote would be -1; i.e. that things *do* 
> belong to the domain of discourse.  But I'd prefer it if this isn't 
> needed (on grounds of simplicity).

>> Note
>> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of 
>> discourse
> +1
>> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of
>> discourse.
> +1
>> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse.
> I'm not sure about this.  I think I agree, but I'd be inclined to say 
> nothing rather than make the assertion that they cannot be.  I think 
> it all rather depends on whether attributes are something that have an 
> existence outside of the assertions (records) that use them.
> ...
> In summary, I think it's fairly clear that artifacts (entities), 
> activities and agents are key elements in the domain of discourse.  
> Some things, like PROV records, clearly are not (to me).  Some of the 
> other things are less clear, but in each case I'd start with a working 
> assumption that they're not until we find a specific requirement that 
> they be explicitly related to (rather than just descriptive of) other 
> things in the domain of discourse.
> #g
> -- 

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 09:29:57 UTC

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