RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

PE - Process Execution. Simon has argued that they are just another type of entity (discussed in the emails he cited).

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Simon Miles; Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Jim,
> 
> What's a PE?  Where did this term come from?  In any case, I'm inclined to
> resist a partitioning of the value space or resources into "entities" and
> something else.
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I spotted your reference to owl:Thing.  Not all provenance applications will
> necessarily use OWL (even if OWL is used to define the semantics).  My reading
> of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/, particularly tables 4.1
> and 5.2, is that owl:Thing and rdf:Resource denote the same class of objects.
> So it might be more generally applicable to developers to talk of rdf:Resource
> rather than owl:Thing.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> 
> Myers, Jim wrote:
> > Simon,
> >
> > I probably should have said every resource is an entity or PE... :-)
> >
> > My statement about everything being an Entity in this thread was in the
> context of the thing versus state of things debate which I think is the distinction
> PAQ was making. Resource on the web that look mutable can be entities(live
> web pages), resources that look frozen (a version of that page) can be entities,
> entities made up for provenance purposes are clearly entities  and could be
> resources (they are not a different type just because they are only tracked for
> provenance purposes).
> >
> > I would still argue that it will be clearer if we make Entities and PEs distinct,
> rather than PE being a subtype of entity, and would just extend to say every
> resource is an entity or PE to stay consistent. In analogy with the idea above, I
> would argue that if there's a web resource that is an event, it qualifies as a PE
> and we shouldn't need a target-like indirection mechanism to get to something
> in the pil model. We may still want to describe sub-events, or entities that
> participate in the event etc. that are not currently-existing resources, but the
> original resource fits the model and the pil relationships are sufficient to relate
> everything.
> >
> > The discussion in [1] is from a different angle, but I think it is
> > still consistent. That one was discussing avoiding things like
> > functions being required to determine identity, e.g. for Java object
> > instances. The point there was to avoid situations in which PIL/PAQ
> > had to be aware of functions or other mechanisms to allow discovery
> > and I think I was basically arguing that one should do something like
> > what the resource mechanism does - in the semantic web sense a
> > resource with a URI represents something in the world and limits what
> > you can retrieve about that thing to content and metadata. For
> > example, content size is really a function of the content, but is
> > presented as metadata. pil:entity should work like that. If it does, I
> > don't see any technical reason why a resource can't have metadata you
> > want for an entity or vice versa how you could create an entity that
> > would not be a viable resource. As before, this doesn't say that there
> > aren't social/practical reasons that som
> eone owning a URL refuses to serve metadata, or that all entities will be things
> one wants to serve as resources. So indirection to/from existing resources in
> the world is useful, but, if you agree that the resources you want to map to
> pil:entities are also valid entities, a target-URI type mechanism now has a
> domain and range of pil:entity and we should be asking if target is a sub-type of
> IVPof, derivation, etc. versus a new concept coming in through PAQ. (If we're
> talking about things without a URI, I think I;m just arguing to use the semantic
> web notion of representing it with a resource and using that as the pil:entity,
> versus having a PIL-specific mechanism.)
> >
> > I hope that makes sense - I still feel like things are self-consistent...
> >
> >  Jim
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] on
> > behalf of Simon Miles [simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 6:59 AM
> > To: Provenance Working Group WG
> > Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >
> > Hello Paul, Jim, all,
> >
> > Jim:
> >> I think everything is a pil:Entity!
> >
> > I am in favour of this view, but I didn't think you were... If it is
> > true, doesn't it mean that, in the formal model, any distinction
> > between pil:Entity and owl:Thing is misleading, and so one should be
> > mapped to the other? I had the (possibly mistaken) impression from
> > other discussions [1, 2] that you disagreed with the consequences of
> > this and so a pil:Entity had something special about it. In which
> > case, Paul may argue that some resources may not have these special
> > characteristics and we need separate "targets". I'm happy to go with
> > what the group agrees, but I don't think the definition of entity in
> > the model expresses how general a class Entity is, which appears to
> > have consequences for the PAQ.
> >
> > Paul:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I agree this is an important reason for having the target URI
> > (somewhere) - even if a resource itself is an entity and ivpOf
> > relations can be expressed in the provenance data, the identifiers
> > that clients have for it may not be the ones used in provenance for
> > whatever reasons, or the client may not have an identifier at all, as
> > discussed in issue 46 [3]
> >
> > thanks,
> > Simon
> >
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/0111.html
> > [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0017.html
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
> >
> >
> >> 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.ht
> >>> ml
> >>>>>>> [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
> >>
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _____
> >> _ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> >> System.
> >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _____
> >> _
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Simon Miles
> > Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> > +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> >
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 15:03:33 UTC