- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:01:56 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham, I personally had never considered observability as essential property in the context of provenance. I am fine with the option that you propose. I would even go further, and venture the following proposal. PROPOSED: IVPT may or may not be observable What do you think? Regards, Luc On 08/06/11 18:31, Graham Klyne wrote: > Hi Luc, > > Luc Moreau wrote: > > The reason why I raised the issue is that over the WE, when discussing > > with Kai, this notion of observability popped up. > > OK. > > My take on "observability" would be along the lines of there being an > available method by means of which information directly about the > thing observed could be obtained. > > For concepts, I would think this amounts to some way in which > authoritative information about the concept can be accessed. For > concepts for which there is no such authoritative information, then > they aren't (directly) observable, but may be "indirectly observable" > (which I would treat as not observable) though (e.g.) assertions made > by other people. > > Example: "truth". I don't suppose there's any way in which this > concept is directly observable. But there are any number of > philosophical discourses on truth that might be cited as giving us > indirect information about truth (e.g. Tarski, Quine, etc.) > > This suggests to me that we may want to have an identifier for the > concept, even if there are no direct "observations" associated with > it; I hazard that it has no direct provenance. But we can still say > that Tarski, Quine, etc. say things about the concept of truth. > > It's a viewpoint ... with which you may reasonably disagree. But I'd > hate us to get hopelessly tangled in this debate when there are other > useful things we can make progress on. Would it be an option to say > that for some things we don't (yet) know whether or how they can be > observed? > > #g > -- > > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> 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 21:02:30 UTC