W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Full draft of final report

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:54:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF66FC1.40606@gmail.com>
To: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
CC: Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Paulo, all:

I see what you want and you're right that it's important. In the list we 
have Version as a concept. One of the examples is "Alice consults a 
website URI whose content changes over time, a document that has 
versions going through edits, etc."

Does this come close to capturing what what you were looking for? Then, 
we could have pml:SourceUsage under Version and pml:Source under 
Resource. Then in the WG we can discuss the best way to express that 
link between versions of something and it's identity over time.

What do you think?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva wrote:
> Hi Yolanda et al.,
> The report looks very nice, thank you very much! I would like to 
> discuss one point while the document is still a draft.
> I understand that some concepts were preserved in our final list of 
> provenance concepts because they would not be capture by other 
> concepts in the list. With that in mind, I would say that most of us 
> consider mutable and immutable resources to be distinct concepts but 
> that we are considering them to be a single concept named ’resource’ 
> for the sake of keeping things simple. My major issue with this 
> combination of concepts is that we are also ignoring a third concept 
> that describes how mutable and immutable resources are connected 
> (e.g., how a version of a document relates to the document).
> At some point during the list compilation, we were using the term 
> ‘resource’ to be an immutable resource corresponding to opm:Artifact. 
> Furthermore, we used to have ‘source’ as a mutable resource (and being 
> the concept corresponding to pml:Source). Finally, we also used to 
> have SourceUsage as a concept capable of connecting mutable and 
> immutable resources. Distinctions between these important concepts are 
> all gone in this final report and I am not just sure why – they are 
> not really capture by other concepts in the list. Can we just put 
> Source and SourceUsage back to the list? In fact, I am wondering how 
> useful would be a provenance language with a single resource that can 
> be mutable and immutable.
> Cheers,
> Paulo.
> On 11/30/2010 9:46 AM, Yolanda Gil wrote:
>> All:
>> We now have a complete full draft of the group's final report:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Final_Report_Draft
>> Over the next couple of days I will be doing the final edits to make
>> the sections flow better, and preparing it in the W3C required
>> format.  I will send out a note when it is officially published.
>> Many thanks for your generous contributions over the last few months.
>> It is very challenging to volunteer time and effort to an activity
>> like this, but the amount of ideas, discussions, and documents that
>> you all have produced are a testament to your commitment to making
>> provenance on the Web a reality.
>> I have enjoyed working with all of you, and look forward to continuing
>> our discussions in the Working Group!
>> All the best,
>> Yolanda
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 16:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:00 UTC