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 21:38:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF6B236.3050203@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.

So I think we are in agreement that the working group needs to make sure 
it deals with this.

I think it's best not to change the conceptual names but to make notes 
for clarification. So it's important that pml:SourceUsage is under 
version and we need a note that says "A link is necessary between an 
immutable resource and its mutable versions." in that section.

We didn't divide things up into properties and classes in this scoping 
but obviously the working group will. So you may be right that version 
ends up meaning an immutable resource and resource means something 
mutable. But I think we should let the working group decide that. But 
just makes sure they (i.e. we) ensure that this is considered.

Does that make sense?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva wrote:
> 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 20:38:48 UTC

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