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

Re: Full draft of final report

From: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:56:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4CF67E27.8080204@utep.edu>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
CC: Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Paul et al,,

Is not ‘version’ an immutable resource? How about this: we keep 
‘version’ and ‘resource’ and do not introduce source :-))) Instead, we 
state that ‘version’ is immutable and ‘resource’ is mutable (and it may 
be the case you want to move opm:Artifact under version). If you are 
happy with the minimal changes above, I would suggest that we rename 
‘version’ to ‘resource version’!

I still believe that we need sourceusage (or resourceusage) as a concept 
that states the relationship between resource and a version of the 
resource. For example, when in the report we say that "Alice needs to 
express that this version should be used rather than the previous when 
she releases a new report", how do you represent the verb 'express' in 
the previous sentence? That is why we may need sourceusage. In this 
case, I am assuming usageDateTime to be a property of sourceusage. Thus, 
one could look up for all versions of a given resource and pick the 
latest version (according to the usageDateTime in its corresponding 
instance of sourceusage). Alternatively, one could follow the provenance 
trace of any of the versions of the resource to retrieve the latest 
version since the versions would have provenance showing how a given 
version was derived from previous versions of the same resource, if any. 
Either way, instances of a concept like sourceusage would be the ones 
indicating that the versions that we are using/retrieving are version of 
a common resource.

Many thanks,
Paulo.

On 12/1/2010 8:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 16:56:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 December 2010 16:56:39 GMT