Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

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