Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Hi Jim,

Ok - if this is the point of view of the model then that certainly makes the PAQ easier to define. 

I still think there's a case for allowing a target-uri to be specified when you don't want to put the URL of the resource in the provenance. For example, many sites have long urls for implementation purposes but may want to describe provenance in terms of a "better" URL e.g. A permalink.

At any rate, I think this is a better way to describe the PAQ without getting involved in the model.

We'll see what Graham and others think.

Cheers
Paul

On Aug 12, 2011, at 15:32, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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 18:05:08 UTC