- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:53:55 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all, I am joining late this conversation, but I'd like to comment on Paul's sentence: > It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page) is a pil:Entity. I don't think this makes sense at all. A pil:Entity is a construct of the data model. Definition: An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing. So, it is reasonable to compare resource and thing (as in the model document), but not resource and pil:entity. However, we can say a pil:entity is an assertion about a resource. For a given resource, there may be many pil:entity about that resource. Luc On 08/11/2011 07:01 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > 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 >> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 09:54:27 UTC