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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-517: Data Model Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:58:31 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|dd32573923d6b5445b218bb029694583o8OAwW08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50618047.1080206@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

I drafted a response to issue-517 on the wiki at
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-517_.28Revision.2FQuotation.29
I copy it below for your convenience.
Comments/feedback welcome.

Luc


      ISSUE-517 (Revision/Quotation)

    * Original email:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0107.html
    * Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/517
    * Group Response:
          o prov-dm intentionally defines terms informally. The
            definitions of Revision and Quotation are reasonably intuitive.
          o prov-dm is complemented by a set of constraints in
            prov-constraints.
          o Inference 12 of prov-constraints states that the two
            entities linked by a revision are also alternates.
          o Given this, can we have
            wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[prov:type='prov:Revision']) and
            wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[prov:type='prov:Quotation'])?
                +  From the first statement, one can infer
                  alternateOf(e2,e1)
                +  From the second statement, e2 contains a copy of
                  something (text/image) contains in e1
    * References:
          o prov-constraint Inference 12:
            http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#revision-is-alternate-inference_text
    * Proposed changes: none
    * Original author's acknowledgement:



On 10/09/2012 09:45, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-517: Data Model Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3   [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/517
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Sections_5.2.2_and_5.2.3
>
> ISSUE-463
>
>
> The semantic distinction between revision and quotation is not clear. To a computer, a document that contains content from another could have been created through either revision or quotation. If these types are to be part of the spec they should be defined more clearly as users arbitrarily choosing one type over another will hinder interoperability.
>
> I might suggest that "revision" be used to describe the logical lineage of an entity, whereas "quotation" would pull content from an entity in a different lineage; however, this still isn't completely precise as it requires a common interpretation of how to define "lineage".
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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, 25 September 2012 10:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 September 2012 10:01:03 GMT