Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

+1, Anything that we want to describe its provenance is as far as we are 
concerned a PIL:Entity, HTML documents are not an exception.

khalid

On 12/08/2011 14:32, Myers, Jim 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 Wednesday, 17 August 2011 17:12:12 UTC