RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Paul,

I think everything is a pil:Entity! Nominally a living page could have
direct provenance - when did it first appear, who approved it getting
added to the overall site, when did it get downloaded,  used in a backup
process, etc. Just because we have an open world and we (some asserter)
may not have provenance to directly associate with it doesn't mean it is
not/can't be a pil:Entity. To look at it backwards, if IVPOf fits the
need, why would you not want to consider the living page to be a
pil:Entity.

With everything being able to be a pil:Entity, I think in the following
way: For resource X, if I want to talk about aspects of it that are
immutable, I directly associate provenance statements with it via used,
generatedby, derived. If I want to talk about its mutable aspects, I
create additional characterizations (e.g. versions for content) -
additional pil:Entitities that may also already be resources themselves
or may just be being invented/defined for provenance purposes (e.g. if I
am not already tracking versions of my live page as part of my site
operations, I identify them just for provenance purposes so I can talk
about when each version was created, read, etc.) and associate them with
the original via IVPof relationships and then use used/generatedby on
the characterizations. If X is really just the context or is controlling
some other process we have agent and participation.

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Groth [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:13 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Khalid Belhajjame; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> "the targetURI discussion is about relating the living page to its
versions which
> then have provenance"
> 
> that's a fairly good summary.
> 
> Can you clarify that Complement Of (was IVPof) works on things that
are not
> pil:Entities? I thought it only applies to pil:Entity?
> 
> thanks,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> 
> --
> 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 Friday, 12 August 2011 13:33:02 UTC