Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

On 23/08/2011 17:07, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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.

Why?  I see no value in *requiring* the assertion.

Indeed, I suspect that this approach cannot be mapped to RDF's open-world model, 
but I can't confirm that without better understanding the details of what is 
being proposed.

#g
--

> 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
>

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 14:55:29 UTC