RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

> Now, if one says that every resource is  a pil:Entity, we may not need
this

That, or that every pil:Entity can be a resource (or both). As before if
I have a living web page with some URL, it may have different versions
that have different (but related) provenance. If I understand correctly,
the targetURI discussion is about relating the living page to its
versions which then have provenance (it also makes the assumption that
there are resources that don't have any direct provenance - all the
provenance is associated with versions or other things that are IVPsOf
the resource). I'm pointing out that each version is a valid web
resource as well (could be given its own URI) so we don't have to treat
it as a different class of thing, and that just because we don't have
direct provenance for a resource doesn't mean it isn't a valid
pil:entity. 

With the IVPof relation, we still have the mechanism to relate the
version resources with the living webpage resource, so we don't lose any
expressivity from what's in the PAQ doc. I think it just shifts the
discussion from targets as a separate type to PIL describing the
provenance of resources and having the capability to capture the
situation where some/all of the known provenance is associated with
specific version resources or other types of resources that partially
characterize the resource. 

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Groth [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:01 PM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Khalid Belhajjame; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Hi Jim, Khalid:
> 
> In the model, provenance is described with respect to pil:Entities. In
the PAQ
> document, we describe access primarily with respect to the Web
Architecture.
> It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page) is a
pil:Entity. If so, then
> the access approach says go ahead and use the url of that resource to
find the
> provenance of it within an identified set of provenance information.
> 
> However, it may be the case that the resource is not a pil:Entity. In
that case,
> we provide a mechanism (Target-URIs) that let you associate the
resource to a
> pil:Entity (the target) such that you can identify a characterization
of the
> resource and thus find it in some provenance provenance information.
> 
> This approach also lets you have multiple pil:Entities associated with
a
> particular resource.
> 
> We are just rying to find a simple way to let the accessor know when
they get
> some provenance information what they should be looking for within
that
> provenance information.
> 
> Now, if one says that every resource is  a pil:Entity, we may not need
this. Is
> that what you're saying? and can you explain how this is the case?
> 
> I hope this clarifies what we are trying to enable.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >
> > I think the gist of the discussion on the modeling side lately and
the
> > decision to have 'only Bobs' would shift this towards just talking
> > about the link between provenance and resources with the model then
> > having a mechanism to indicate when some resources are views of
> > others, i.e. one URI is the page content on a given date and the
other
> > URI is the live page, but both are resources that can have
provenance,
> > and their provenance can contain links that indicate their
relationship.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > *From:*public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Khalid
> > Belhajjame
> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:13 AM
> > *To:* Paul Groth
> > *Cc:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My main concern reading sections 1 and 3, is the use of both
resource
> > and target entity. I understand that the idea is that a web
resources
> > may be associated with multiple target entities, and that there is a
> > need to identify which target the provenance describes. However,
> > having to go through the two levels resource then entity is a bit
> > confusing, specially for a reader is not aware of the discussions
that
> > we had about the two concepts.
> >
> > Suggestion: Would it be really bad if we confine ourselves to the
> > provenance vocabulary and describe how the provenance of an Entity,
as
> > opposed to a resource, can be accessed?
> >
> > Other comments:
> >
> > - In the definition of a resource, it said that "a resource may be
> > associated with multiple targets". It would be good if we could
> > clarify this relationship a bit more.
> >
> > - I find the definition of provenance information a bit vague, the
> > body of the definition says pretty much the same thing as the title
of
> > the definition. If we don't have a better idea of what can be said,
it
> > is probably better to remove it.
> >
> > In Section 3, Second paragraph, "Once provenance information
> > information" -> "once provenance information"
> >
> > In the same paragraph: "one needs how to identify" -> "one needs to
> > know how to identify".
> >
> > Khalid
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/08/2011 20:37, Paul Groth wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Graham and I have been making some changes to the PAQ document [1]
> > that we would like to request feedback on at tomorrow's telecon.
> >
> > In particular, we have updated Sections 1 and 3. We've added a
section
> > on core concepts and made section 3 reflect these concepts. We think
> > this may address PROV-ISSUE-46 [2].
> >
> > Please take a look and let us know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
> > Note: Section 4 Provenance discovery service is still under heavy
> > editing
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
> >
> 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
> Artificial Intelligence Section
> Department of Computer Science
> VU University Amsterdam

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 18:23:06 UTC