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

Re: alternate example in primer

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:35:16 -0500
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b21fba00b75d3beda2b1c0cc89de1c77oACIZR08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50A292E4.6070503@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

On 13/11/2012 11:28, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> When preparing the PROV tutorial at ISCW'12, we discussed the example 
>> for alternate in the primer.
>>
>> , /if a file is copied from one directory to another, we may want to 
>> say that (according to our model) these are both the same file, just 
>> in a different location. We may say that the file in the first 
>> directory, F1, is an alternate of the file in the second directory, 
>> F2. Note that it is the context (location) rather than content of the 
>> file that differs between the entities in this case.
>>
>> /We didn't find this example as the most compelling.
>>
>>  I don't think that in general, copying a file creates  an alternate. 
>> If file f2 is a copy of file f1, I don't know what same thing, f1 and 
>> f2 present a same aspect of.
>
>
> Both files are specializations of an entity that presents the fixed 
> aspect of a given sequence of bits.
> The two specializations further [differently] fix the file path aspect.
>
My concern about this is that this "entity that presents the fixed 
aspect of a given sequence of bits"
looks more like a type than an actual thing.

So, it feels that what the two files have in common is that they belong 
to the same class of files with a given
content.

Luc

>
>> And while there is some form of caveat "accordign to our model", this 
>> example may be confusing for readers.
>
>
> Not sure if "according our model" is support to change the example. 
> That phrase could easily be removed, since it isn't really qualifying 
> anything (since our model is assumed).
>
>>
>> Instead of this example, we decided to use a content negotiation example:
>>
>> Dereferencing a url requesting different mime types eg. turtle or 
>> rdf/xml, returns two entities that are alternate of each other.
>
>
> This is an even more abstract analog of the current "file copy" 
> example. (c.f. "item vs. manifestation" and "manifestation vs. 
> expression" in Jim McCusker and my FRIR IPAW paper)
>
>
>>
>> If we are in agreement, can we change the primer accordingly?
>
>
> Or, just add it?
>
> -Tim
>
>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://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
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 18:36:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 November 2012 18:36:20 GMT