RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

It's the extension beyond that use I'm concerned about. If links can point to "URIs denoting different levels of invariance" as Graham considers, it becomes an alternate method of specifying IVPof relationships (I can point to three targets and expect you to understand that those three are in IVPof relationships and represent me (the resource) in different ways, or I can link to one and use IVPof statements there to achieve the same goal. Why should we allow a target link to have overlapping functionality with IVPof?). If we really need to start putting additional provenance information in links (i.e. telling you about more than one IVPof me), why not at least use pil terms = 'rel = "IVPof" ' or whatever we settle on?

As for complementOf - since complement means 'counterpart' and has the notion of not being the same thing - being separate and adding to the thing, I don't think it works as a replacement for IVPof - viewOf doesn't capture everything but would be better than complement in that its English meaning does not conflict ...

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Groth [mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:21 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Graham Klyne; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> 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.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 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 12:45:53 UTC