- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:41:00 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, all, I realise that there have been many posts since the one I'm replying to, but the articles you suggested (esp. [1], [2]) seems directly related to, and agreeing with, what Jim and others have been saying, and I haven't seen anyone related their arguments to our discussion. In brief, I think that their arguments would support proposals for us to: - talk only about resources (not states, representations etc.) for anything of which we could find the provenance, and - first define what the provenance of a resource is with regards to just those aspects for which it is considered immutable, before loosening this assumption for user convenience In less brief: An implication of their arguments are that distinctions between web "resource", "state" and "representation" are not precisely defined and anyway merely examples of a wider range of generalisation/specialisation relationships. This seems to support the suggestions (from Graham and Martin?) that we do not distinguish resource and resource state: everything's a resource. I would express the main argument of the articles in my own terms as: we can talk about the metadata of any resource *in those aspects for which it is immutable* (or, in their terms, where it is true for every specialisation of the resource). So the Royal Society, while definitely a mutable resource, will always have been founded in 1660 [3]. A statement of its membership however, would have to apply to the Society as it is on a particular date, a specialisation of the first resource. [1] additionally comments on mapping this abstract idea to practice on the web. Specifically, a general resource may be referred to when you are actually making a statement about one specialisation of that resource if it is clear from context which specialisation you mean, e.g. your statement uses the URI of a webpage but actually refers to the serialisation of that webpage in your browser. thanks, Simon [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/20110517/ [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society On 31 May 2011 15:20, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > I just spotted this work-in-progress of the W3C TAG, which might have some > bearing on our approach to provenance... > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/20110517/ > > This in turn leads (directly and/or indirectly) to: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62 > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63 > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/metadata-survey.html > http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-place-of-metadata/ > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html > > It appears this is a live issue for the TAG: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0086.html > > #g > -- > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 14:41:28 UTC