- From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:12:37 +0000
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com, chase@spartanconsultinginc.com
- Message-ID: <OFE6A728E9.02708636-ON80257AF3.0052E1CF-80257AF3.00538DBD@vistatec.ie>
> ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a > <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the (temporal) > order in which the records were created? If an ordering is implied, > it raises questions about the implied ordering in a document where > provenance records are declared both globally and via local markup. I would think that the order of provenance records implying temporal order would cause all kinds of implementation problems. > iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a > date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form of history > somewhat muddy. In practice, a single tool/agent may edit a single > document multiple times in succession over an arbitrary period of > time. Should these multiple "sessions" be represented by a single > logical provenance record? Or is it the intention of the spec that > the agent add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which > a modification is made to the document? Lack of a date/time does sound like an oversight on reflection. Having one would solve isue (ii). Dave, are date/times of provenance records provided for in the PROV standard? Although I'd still think we need them in ITS becuase the creation of an actual provenance record in a triple store could be later than the event itself. Phil. From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, Date: 12/01/2013 14:41 Subject: ISSUE-72: Provenance Data Category Hi all, > i) Can an element have both local provenance data (either inline or > via local standoff markup) and also reference global provenance data > (declared via global standoff markup) using the attribute specified > globally via provenanceRecordsRefPointer? The draft does not specify. I don't think so. Overriding rules takes care of that: any provenanceRecordsRefPointer of a global rule would be overridden by the local provenanceRecordsRef. In other words, one cannot have in the same node: provenancerecordsRef and an another attribute that is declared as having the same semantics via a provenanceRecordsRefPointer in a global rule. > ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a > <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the (temporal) > order in which the records were created? If an ordering is implied, > it raises questions about the implied ordering in a document where > provenance records are declared both globally and via local markup. > > iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a > date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form of history > somewhat muddy. In practice, a single tool/agent may edit a single > document multiple times in succession over an arbitrary period of > time. Should these multiple "sessions" be represented by a single > logical provenance record? Or is it the intention of the spec that > the agent add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which > a modification is made to the document? Good points. Hopefully the Provenance champions have answers. cheers, -yves ************************************************************ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by e-mail. www.vistatec.com ************************************************************
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 15:13:09 UTC