- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:07:03 +0100
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I think it's a good way of phrasing it. I appreciate that my comment was a bit pedantic, but it's important not to mix these concepts. Luc On 08/23/2011 04:52 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: > OK - Does this mean that rather than resources being entities we just need to say resources can be asserted to be entities? (After which the resource URI is a valid identifier for that entity in subsequent pil statements?) > > Jim > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:30 AM >> To: Myers, Jim >> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: 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 >> > -- 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 16:07:36 UTC