Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Hi Jim,

That's exactly what I am saying, your paper is an identified 
characterized thing. And we can make assertions about it. An
assertion is expressed with the pil:Entity construct.

I suppose that I can make the following  different assertions about your 
paper. I can further state
that they complement each other.

entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim 
Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])

entity(http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/File:IPAW2010_ITTIA_Myers.pdf, 
[author="Jim Myers", presentationTime="10h15" ])

entity(http://easychair/uuid, [author="Jim Myers", reviewers={xyz, abc}, 
recommendation="accept"])


What does it sound like?

Luc


On 08/23/2011 02:19 PM, Myers, Jim 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
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
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 14:37:00 UTC