W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [dxwg] Provenance information [RPIF]

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:45:56 +1000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzSJ2JXk_CYBNCuSH-=MA803SLeMgeNHFc30kN5zTtNUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
It is worth noting that the "input" may, quite naturally, either be a piece
of code to run, or a reference to a agent (process). Programs are often run
through layers of interpretation - code is always data expressed in the
metamodel of the execution layer.  So it may tie us in knots trying to
create a arbitrary distinction. They are not disjoint sets from the
perspective of semantic modelling.


On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 21:26 Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> @larsgsvensson the differentiation you describe is how I describe things
> so I agree with your general characterisations.
>
> I do agree that defining a *process* can be tricky but if we stick to the
> "provenance that we want", not a "provenance that could be modelled" then
> we can usually do something sensible. In the example you give of a servlet
> validating something I would model it thus:
>
> * the *process* as a `prov:Activity` - starting and ending with the
> processing of the RDF of interest, regardless of any other jobs it may be
> doing (we don't care about those)
> * the servlet as a `prov:SoftwareAgent`, if that's important to know, or
> perhaps the server itself
>   * the choice of which Agent to model will come down to what facts are
> most importantt o know for a Use Case such as recording info for potential
> process recreation
> * the *input* of the RDF file being validated as a `prov:Entity`
> * the *input* of a SHACL file as a `prov:Entity` - not a `prov:Plan`
>   * here the SHACL file is not instructing the Activity. It's determining
> a validation assessment but the conducting of the Activity itself is, in
> fact, guided by the code that applies the validation to the data, the SHACL
> file to the input RDF.
> * the output of the validation task - pass, fail, error messages etc - a
> `prov:Entity` that `prov:wasDerivedFrom` the two *inputs* AND the
> `prov:Plan` that instructed that the SHACL *input* be applied to the RDF
> *input*
>
> So this modelling will allow someone to see when (`Activity`) something
> (whichever `Agent`) did what (`Plan`) with what inputs (`Entity` x 2) and
> what output (`Entity`). Sure, you could model things differently but what's
> the Use Case?
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/76#issuecomment-394080012 using your
> GitHub account
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 00:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:43 UTC