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 14:13:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4CF6BA83.6070306@utep.edu>
To: "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

Please see some comments in-line below.

> 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.

1) I would say "A link is necessary between a mutable resource and its
immutable versions" (although I consider sourceusage to be a concept,
and an important one);

3) The current version of the document says that a resource can be
mutable and immutable. If that is the case, I would like to better
understand the difference between an immutable 'resource' and 'version'.

> 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?

It does make sense to have a group agreement before we further change
the document. I am just wondering if this is something that we can
decide now (e.g., this week) or leave it this way in the charter.

Many thanks,

> Paul
> 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 21:14:11 UTC

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