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

Re: Full draft of final report

From: Pgroth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:39:03 +0100
Message-Id: <208FAA9F-5B1A-4DE7-93E2-0093D2AFDB80@gmail.com>
To: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
Cc: "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Responses in line
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:13 PM, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu> wrote:

> 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);

Sorry, I agree with your sentence. My mistake. Definitely include sourceusage under version. 

> 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'.

Probably not much or any but this needs some deeper thought just with respect to terminology so again I would say leave it to the wg.

>> 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.

I think as long as we have the note as above that's the best we can do. But it's an important note.


> Many thanks,
> Paulo.
>> 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 21:43:39 UTC

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