- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:49:57 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Again, the same. On 08/15/2011 03:05 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. > > +1 the above. (Except that I'm unconvinced that there's a *need* to > distinguish pil:Entity from rdf:Resource, but I can live with the > notion that a pil:Entity is something about which provenance > assertions can be (or are) made.) A pil:Entity *IS* an assertion! Luc > >> 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. > > +1 if I understand this correctly. > >> ... 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. > > +1 > > > ... If X is really just the context or is controlling >> some other process we have agent and participation. > > Er, you lost me there. But overall, I think I fully agree with what > you're saying here. > > #g > -- > >>> -----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 >> >> >> > > -- 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 10:50:25 UTC