Re: PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

On 26/08/2011 00:19, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> Responses interleaved.
>
> On 25/08/11 14:48, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 23:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying
>>> Provenance]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/77
>>>
>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>>
>>>
>>> Terminology is not always used consistently. Sometimes, it's confusing. I
>>> group all these comments in a single issue.
>>>
>>> To start with, the word "context" which is overloaded. Furthermore, some
>>> sentences have two occurrences of this word, one with the technical meaning,
>>> one with the common sense meaning. In fact, we used to have a good term,
>>> "subject of provenance", which we could consider here.
>>
>> This was discussed on the list when we moved away from "target", and so far
>> the term "context" has found favour (and is also consistent with the usage
>> associated with link relations). I'm not aware of any sentences in which the
>> uses of context are contradictory: part of the value of this term is that it
>> aligns pretty well with its colloquial meaning. (I didn't set out to write a
>> formal document here, but one from which developers could create interoperable
>> implementations.)
>
> I would like to see more support for the term context. If the WG supports it, so
> be it.
> Folks?
>
>>
>>> Why do we have location_template and provenance_template?
>>> Shouldn't they be provenance_location_template and provenance_content_template?
>>> Both are indeed related to provenance.
>>
>> Indeed they are. I initially drafted the forms you mentioned, then decided
>> against them. These names appear specifically in a description of a provenance
>> service, so adding provenance- to the name isn't needed for disambiguation,
>> and does make them more unwieldy.
>
> You seem to contradict yourself. provenance_template includes the word provenance.
> I am arguing for consistency. Either both have it, or none has it.

Well, I really don't care that much.  "template" on its own would have seemed 
too bare to me.  I'll change it back to the forms you suggest.

(DONE in working copy)

>>> The discovery service is sometimes referred to as discovery and retrieval
>>> service. Shouldn't it be consistently referred as discovery and retrieval
>>> service? But this is also referred to as provenance service.
>>
>> Yes, more consistency here would be nice, but I wonder if it comes at the
>> expense of more clumsy text. Technically, it would be a discovery *and/or*
>> retrieval service: either one or the other or both options can be provided.
>
> Alterantively, you could define a provenance service as having discovery and
> retrieval capability, and use the term provenance service.

OK, that could work.

(Added note to rework text in working copy)

>>> The text seems to make the distinction between resource-uri and context-uri.
>>> But isn't it the case that a resource-uri is a context-uri?
>>
>> Not necessarily. resource-uri might be the dynamic resource, and context-uri
>> might be a particular view of it (e.g. see recent discussion with Olaf about
>> DBpedia Berlin page.)
> Even if resource-uri denotes a dynamic resource, I would argue that it is also a
> context-uri.

Yes, I'd agree with that.  But that doesn't preclude having different context 
URIs as well.

> We are here exactly at the interface with the model.
> I don't see why the dynamic resource denoted by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
> cannot be seen
> as a PIDM entity (attributes with constant values are its initial launch date,
> its owner, etc.)

Yes I agree with that too, but there seem to be unresolved details we need to 
debate in the PIDM context.  Once the dust settles there, I'd propose to review 
this terminology.

#g
--

Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 07:54:50 UTC