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

Re: PROPOSALS TO VOTE ON (deadline: Wednesday 14th, midnight GMT)

From: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:02:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4F5FA7D7.5020802@nasa.gov>
To: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 03/13/2012 07:59 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> So if I, for example, download those proceedings prior to their
>> disappearance, then at some later time, perform some activity based on
>> those proceedings, while my activity "used" the proceedings
>> themselves, it doesn't (can't) use the entity chicago:wkshp2002, which
>> no longer exists.
>
> I would write this as follows:
>
> entity(chicago:wkshp2002,[prov:type="workshop talks"])
> activity(ex:download)
> entity(ex:wkshp2002copy)
> wasGeneratedBy(ex:wkshp2002copy,ex:download)
> used(ex:download,chicago:wkshp2002, t1)
>
> wasInvalidated(chicago:wkshp2002, t2)
>
> activity(ex:otherAction)
> used(ex:otherAction, ex:wkshp2002copy, t3)
>
> where t1 < t2 < t3

Your examples seems to be conflating the URI that is the identifier
for the entity with the URL from which the content (bunch of bits)
that make up that entity are available.

I sometimes use URIs for things that are different from the URL from
which their content is available (and for some things that aren't
available through that URL at all like ex:curt -- you might get some
information about me at ex:curt, but you can't actually download me
from there).

I also don't really ever use content from the web directly.  I always
download it first -- either onto disk or into memory.  I then perform
some activity using the thing I downloaded.  I don't see the need to
explicitly describe that download activity every single time (though I
could see cases where that would be required) Most of the time I would
just refer to the original entity.


Anyway, I don't see a need for 'invalidated' for myself, but if
someone else wants to use it, I don't object to it.  It does have a
certain symmetry with generation.


> Can you expand on this suggestion of prov:SupercededBy?  How would
> it work?

It is really just the inverse of 'wasRevisionOf'.

Perhaps superseded implies something slightly stronger, in that it
suggests that the version superseded is deprecated in favor of the new
revision.

We don't really need it since we can just use revision.

Curt
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 20:01:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT