W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 20:11:46 -0500
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <13425857-02A1-42F7-A1F1-86FC6AF839A4@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
+1 to keeping location in DM, treated as a hook similarly as with Recipe (Plan?).

-Tim

On Dec 1, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> I agree - what is important from a provenance perspective would be the
> property linking something WITH a location. How that location is
> specified is beyond our knowledge - and we should allow any kind of
> 'location', not just "geo-spatial". (The filename examples contradicts
> this already).
> 
> 
> I see this along the same lines as the anchor for Recipe/Plan.
> 
> It comes to the prime questions of provenance.. WHAT happened, WHEN
> did it happen, WHERE did it happen and WHO did it.
> 
> We've got WHAT and WHO pretty well covered - WHEN is tentatively
> covered (PROV-O references time.owl which allows most WHEN
> expressions), but WHERE would be lost if we remove Location.
> 
> I think both entities and activities MAY have a location specified. It
> is of course not a requirement that the location is fixed with regards
> to the Earth's surface, for instance a card transaction could take
> place on a moving train between London and Paris, or a virtual
> purchase takes place "on the website", and a file is located on a
> certain filesystem path *and* a certain disk sector *and* on a certain
> USB disk in someones pocket.
> 
> I don't think it should either be a requirement that locations are
> consolable, e.g. if activity A uses entity e1 and generates e2 - all
> three of these could have "different" locations. So I don't think
> there will be any particular reasoning you can do about the location -
> it is still very much a useful concept that would be common to many
> provenance scenarios, just like agents and time.
> 
> 
> In the current PROV-O FPWD provo:hadLocation can be used either with
> an provo:Entity or with an provo:QualifiedInvolvement (specifying
> location of the use/generation/control)  - but not with the actual
> ProcessExecution.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 17:39, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> Hi Luc
>> I believe it is essential to have hooks in the model to well known an important provenance concepts. This includes location.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:59, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Following this September message, I am proposing to close this issue
>>> formally.
>>> 
>>> This said, location is so weakly specified in the model, that it begs
>>> the question "what
>>> does it do in the model at all". No specific data type, no specific
>>> property, no specific
>>> constraint, no specific inference.  As part of the clean up, we could
>>> simply drop this
>>> concept, and it wouldn't affect inter-operability!
>>> 
>>> If you have views on this, please raise them as new issues.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> On 09/23/2011 11:50 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> We are proposing to close this issue, pending review.
>>>> The latest version of the document states that:
>>>> 
>>>> Location is an OPTIONAL attribute of entity expressions and process
>>>> execution expressions.
>>>> 
>>>> Feel free to reopen it, if you feel this is not right.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Luc
>>>> 
>>>> On 06/09/2011 12:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define
>>>>> under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model]
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/91
>>>>> 
>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have received little input and there has been barely any
>>>>> discussion on location.
>>>>> The current text is essentially copied from the wiki and is not
>>>>> aligned with the rest of the model.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, can entities have location?  If so, should location appear as an
>>>>> attribute of an entity?
>>>>> So, should PIDM define some core attributes? or should this be left
>>>>> to a generic profile?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What about process executions? PIDM does not have "attribute" for
>>>>> PEs. So, do we need to define a relation hasLocation?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is location unique for an entity/pe?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can people who have interest in location for provenance provide us
>>>>> with some guidance, so that we can write something sensible for the
>>>>> FPWD.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 01:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC