- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:07:38 +0100
- To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Simon, Nice insight! In posting the links, I hadn't really considered how they apply to the mutability debate. Jonathan Rees' note [1] in particular (which should be noted has a status somewhere between individual contribution and working draft) provides language and concepts for dealing with degrees of mutability in a somewhat principled fashion. #g -- Simon Miles wrote: > 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 >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 21:16:00 UTC