- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:09:10 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham, The reason why I raised the issue is that over the WE, when discussing with Kai, this notion of observability popped up. I think Jim also mentioned it in another thread (apologies, if I got it wrong). In all fairness, I thought we had to discuss this. Given that we have indicated that we want to track the provenance of things, which may be physical, digital, CONCEPTUAL or otherwise, I don't know what observability means when things are conceptual. I take note of Carl's pointers to definitions of observability in the physical world. I would argue that even in the digital world, observability is not straightforward. In the provenance challenge, we have seen techniques instrumenting code, i.e. adding constructs to record provenance. In that case, can we say the system observed what was happening? or was it programmed to record provenance synchronously with its execution? Regards, Luc On 07/06/11 12:06, Graham Klyne wrote: > May I suggest we see if this is an issue in light of the proposed > definitions? > > #g > -- > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> When we discussed the notion of 'Invariant View or Perspective on a >> Thing, there were >> suggestions that it should be observable, and counter-suggestions >> that it should not be. >> >> It would be good to discuss both sides of the argument, in an attempt >> to reach consensus. >> >> Best regards, >> Luc >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 07:09:46 UTC