- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:11:50 +0200
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paolo, I think what Reza is pointing to here is can provenance begin with a person. I think this is a fundamental thing to be able to make the destination between people and other stuff. cheers Paul Paolo Missier wrote: > Reza > > leaving (1) aside as we seem to agree on the specifics of Trust: >> Paolo - >> >> In the case of "Trust", I think your solution works and it solves the >> problem. There was another thread where someone suggested (I don't >> remember who now, sorry) the same thing for system vs. human (this is >> the user-agent vs. agent vs. etc.) discussion. In that case, it >> doesn't work. >> >> So, here are my thoughts on your email: >> >> 1. Thanks for the solution of "Trust" being an attribute of some >> sort. This will work. Either you and/or I should send out a >> separate email as proposal to see what the greater group thinks. >> 2. On profiles, I also responded to this, I'm very weary of >> profiles. There are lots of standards with profiles that have >> flopped. At least my strong preference is to be as specific as >> possible in the model and would rather risk being wrong on the >> specific versus generic side given examples like HTML, etc. >> where standards are more successful in gaining adoption when >> erring on the side of specific. I also realize we don't want to >> venture too far in there, but I think you get my point. >> > I do share your concerns on profiles. But you will agree that a line > must be drawn somewhere in terms of our scope? the only criterion that > comes to mind (not having implemented standards myself) is to stop when > it becomes "domain-specific". Is that the idea? Even then, at some point > you will have to give instructions for extensions, as your standard > cannot be closed. The crucial difference with HTML is that we are not > defining a formatting language, which we can confine to what we choose > to, instead we are introducing concepts that seem to belong in some > upper ontology, which by their nature are there to be extended. >> >> There is also another question that has come up that I do not find an >> answer to that I believe is crucial to be answered in order for more >> concrete definition on entities: >> >> Does the provenance of an entity begin beyond its physical origination? >> >> I'd like to get a binary answer from the perspective of this working >> group. All the materials that I have studied regarding provenance in >> the past indicates a "Yes" to above so I had assumed (perhaps >> incorrectly) that the answer is "Yes". But I think it's crucial we >> answer this question and document it on the wiki. > Crisp off-the-cuff answer: provenance begins as early as there are > observers that can make assertions to record it. > However, you seem to refer to "when a thing assumes its current > identity". That I don't know, but I have argued elsewhere that it > doesn't matter. I can talk about the provenance of a car in terms of its > components before they were assembled into a car, and the fact that the > car had no identity before the assembly process does not bother me. > > atb -Paolo >> >> >> On 7/18/11 10:50 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: >>> Reza, >>> >>> it's worth trying to make progress on this as we are in the process >>> of editing a document draft. >>> >>> I can see the dilemma: >>> - the less you specify in the model, the more you risk >>> incompatibilities as different implementations make their own choices >>> to fill the gaps; >>> - but by adding specific extensions to the top-level concepts in the >>> model, you risk to make those choices arbitrary. >>> >>> But in this specific instance, I believe that "trusted" is one >>> specific qualification of "Agent" that does not belong to the model, >>> rather it belongs to applications that use the model (i.e., to >>> /assess some measure of trust/). >>> But I see your need for a "placeholder" where I can assert something >>> about how trust for Agents. This is fine: let Trusted not be a >>> sub-class of Agent, but let "Trust properties" can be properties of >>> Agent. Would that be a problem? Any application that knows about >>> trust would fill in into those properties. >>> >>> To repeat my proposal, I see Agent as a Role that any first-class >>> entity in the model can take on when it is involved in relations that >>> concern activities. >>> >>> The general lesson I see from this thread is that we urgently need to >>> discuss how principled extension mechanisms ("profiles") make it into >>> our proposal. >>> >>> atb -Paolo > -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:12:32 UTC