Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Jim 
> 
> I think <link> elements in PAQ serve a different purpose the semantics is here's how you find me (the resource)  in provenance information.
> 
> ComplementOf has a much more constrained meaning.

Ah, yes, further to my previous response to Jim, I don't find the "complementOf" 
relation is very useful.

I think I already said that.

#g
--

> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:01, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are possible.  The
>> example I've started thinking about is that multiple <link> elements might
>> indicate different URIs denoting different levels of invariance. 
>>
>> - why aren't these just IVPof relationships? (I'm not arguing against encoding pil relationships as links, just against adding a 'target' concept that duplicates other relationships in the model.)
>>
>> Jim
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:38 PM
>> To: Myers, Jim
>> Cc: Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
>>
>> Myers, Jim wrote:
>>>> In Issue 46 (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46), Luc raised the
>>>> point that the scenario we had agreed to address included a case where the
>>>> recipient of a resource representation had no way to know its URI for the
>>>> purposes of provenance discovery.  After short discussion, my response to this
>>>> issue was to introduce a new link relation type (currently called "target") to
>>>> allow this URI to be encoded in the header of an HTML document.
>>>>
>>>> Does this help?
>>> So this is only used inside an HTML entity?
>> That was the compelling use-case, but once defined, other uses are not excluded.
>>
>>> ... I.e. it is not a relationship between two entities, but is a means to embed
>>> an identifier in an entity (for HTML)?
>> Interesting take.  Practically, in the HTML use case, I think I'd have to agree.
>>
>> But I think it is still technically a relation in the same way that owl:sameAs
>> is a relation, even though its semantics tell us that the related RDF nodes
>> denote the same thing.  Like all HTML <link> elements, it defines a relation
>> between the resource of which the containing document is a representation and a
>> resource denoted by the given URI.  They may both be the same resource.
>>
>> But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are possible.  The
>> example I've started thinking about is that multiple <link> elements might
>> indicate different URIs denoting different levels of invariance.  If the HTML is
>> a document in a source code management system, one such URI might denote a
>> specific version, and another might denote the "current" version, both of which
>> might reasonably be the referent for provenance assertions.
>>
>> These other uses are not reasons that the propoal was introduced, but are just
>> consequences of not placing unnecessary constraints on the use of the existing
>> <link> feature as defined.
>>
>>> An "ID card" mechanism that would allow me to keep my rdf:resource URL on my physical body so you could connect me to my online identity is the same type of thing?
>> Hmmm... I suppose you might think of it like that, but I'm wary of adopting that
>> view as it tends to arbitrarily exclude other possibilities that arguably should
>> flow from this use of the <link> element.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 07:21:41 UTC