- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:37:27 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, I agree with the implication of Jim's questions, and I also suspect most people applying the standard would naturally talk about resources as "entities", and so as pil:Entitys, in the same manner as Paul, Jim, I and others have on this thread. I'm not saying this is correct or incorrect, but I expect it to happen. I also think the current model document reinforces this by talking about both "entity" and "entity assertion", implying they are two distinct things, so removing that language distinction may help (if a pil:Entity is an assertion, then an entity assertion is an assertion assertion). It might also help to clarify in the document what pil:Entity is actually asserting, i.e. when an assertion is made, you are stating something which can be true or false (or partially true), so what would it mean for pil:Entity to be true? That the thing described existed, or that the thing had that identifier, or that the thing's attributes had those values, or all of the above? Thanks, Simon On 23 August 2011 14:19, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > Luc, > If my IPAW paper is on the web with a URL, why isn't that resource an "identified characterized thing"? Are you saying that I must create another ID for a pil:entity that is an assertion about that paper before I can record its provenance? Or are you just arguing that because entities are assertions, an asserter can make them up, i.e. a characterization that is most useful for provenance may not be one that is already identified as a resource? > > I guess I'm looking for the practical impact - are you arguing that we always have a layer of indirection when recording provenance of an existing resource, or are you arguing something more subtle - use of a resource URL in pil as an entity is an assertion that the resource is characterized in a way that is suitable for the provenance being recorded (i.e. the resource is immutable to the types of processes being recorded and we're not talking, for example, about a live web page going through edit processes)? > > Jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:54 AM >> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion >> >> >> 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.htm >> >> l [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 >> > > > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 13:38:05 UTC