Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Hi Jim,

Assertions in PIDM do not have an identity, it's characterized 
things/activies that have to be identifiable.
(Obviously, we could introduce assertion identity  if it is required.)

So, coming to your question, I complete the example in the Abstract 
syntax notation:


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"])

processExecution(pe0,download)
uses(downloadPE, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, r1)
isGeneratedBy(localfileURI, pe0, r2)


Would pil let me sayhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37  hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?


I don't know, given that this is not a PIL predicate. But yes, that 
looks reasonable.

Luc




On 08/23/2011 03:48 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
>> That's exactly what I am saying,
>>      
> Which of the follow two directions, or something different?
>
> If someone downloads http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37,
> Can I assert:
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37<--used--           DownloadPE<--generatedby--          LocalFileURI
>
> or is it
> http://lucsassertions.org/12345 = entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> and
>   http://lucsassertions.org/12345<--used--           DownloadPE<--generatedby--          LocalFileURI
>
>
> Would pil let me say http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37 hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?
>
> Or only
>
> http://lucsassertions.org/12345 hasAuthor "Jim Myers" ?
>
>
>    Jim
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:36 AM
>> To: Myers, Jim
>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: 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
>>      
>    

-- 
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 15:30:52 UTC