- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:50:25 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
You may be right, can you explain how you understand it? Luc On 06/20/2011 11:22 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > It seems we understand the phrase "integral to identity" somewhat > differently, so that's a different reason not use it as part of the > definitions of "things" and "invariant views". The more you say, the > more room there is for disagreement ... > > #g > -- > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Simon and Graham, >> >> I added a response to Graham's comment on invariant property and >> identity. >> See >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Comments >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 06/19/2011 12:18 PM, Simon Miles wrote: >>> Graham, >>> >>> OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree with your point, and am also >>> sympathetic to your discomfort with everything invariant being >>> "integral to identity". >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> On 17 June 2011 23:00, Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >>>> Simon Miles wrote: >>>>> Graham, Stian, all, >>>>> >>>>> I might be confused, but this seems a more complex model than the one >>>>> proposed by Jim and Luc. Why do we need to both a Dynamic Resource >>>>> and a View Resource? I can't see any meaningful difference between >>>>> them either in Graham's definition or Stian's (helpful) concrete >>>>> example. What is the point of saying anything about a mutable >>>>> property, e.g. "content of DynamicResource i0", when any assertion of >>>>> a mutable property's value will not always hold anyway? >>>> Speaking for myself... I used the terms "Dynamic" and "View" as >>>> labels to >>>> distinguish their roles in the structure given. I would not choose >>>> to model >>>> them as different types. >>>> >>>> My point, expressed in terms of Stian's example, is that the notion >>>> we have been >>>> calling IVP is present in the viewOf relation rather than inherent >>>> in the >>>> resources themselves. This was my point, which I think is also at >>>> the heart of >>>> the proposal by Jim and Luc. >>>> >>>> I happen to think that the definition as proposed in the wiki at >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#ACCEPTED_at_teleconference_2011-06-16 >>>> >>>> is over-specified (I've added some comments there). But having >>>> expressed that >>>> reservation, I'm content to let them stand pro tem for the purposes >>>> of discussion. >>>> >>>> #g >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 16 June 2011 15:39, Stian Soiland-Reyes >>>>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:09, Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose that the "Dynamic resource has a number of different >>>>>>> observable >>>>>>> properties, some of which do not change over time, and others >>>>>>> which do. >>>>>>> Then the View resource would be a resource for with a similar >>>>>>> set of >>>>>>> properties such that do not change over time, but correspond to >>>>>>> the dynamic >>>>>>> resource properties at a given time (including properties that >>>>>>> do not change >>>>>>> over time). If the Dynamic resource does not change over time, >>>>>>> then it may >>>>>>> also serve as its own view resource: the has view property can be >>>>>>> reflexive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The provenance resource is an assertion about the properties of >>>>>>> the view >>>>>>> resource. I believe the key requirement that we try to capture >>>>>>> is that the >>>>>>> properties about which the provenance resource makes assertions are >>>>>>> invariant - there is no assertion in the provenance resource >>>>>>> which is not >>>>>>> always true of the view resource. >>>>>> This is a very beautifully simple model which I think we should keep >>>>>> in mind before digging too much into the exciting discussions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "simplified" for the File example: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> :i0 a :DynamicResource ; >>>>>> :name "/home/towns.txt" ; >>>>>> :content [ :bytes "" ] ; >>>>>> :creator :Alice . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> :i0View a :ViewResource ; >>>>>> :viewOf :i0 ; >>>>>> :name "/home/towns.txt" ; >>>>>> :creator :Alice . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> # Metadata stored in filesystem >>>>>> :i0Provenance a :ProvenanceResource ; >>>>>> :provenanceOf :i0View ; >>>>>> :account :FileSystem ; >>>>>> :processes ( >>>>>> [ :agent :Alice ; >>>>>> :location :server1 ; >>>>>> :process :fileCreation ; >>>>>> :time "2011-06-15 18:00:01 UTC" ] >>>>>> ) . >>>>>> >>>>>> # however the log file claims the file was created on her >>>>>> workstation >>>>>> (not server), and 1 second later (clocks out of sync?) >>>>>> >>>>>> :i0Provenance2 a :ProvenanceResource ; >>>>>> :provenanceOf :i0View ; >>>>>> :account :ServerLogFile ; >>>>>> :processes ( >>>>>> [ :agent :Alice ; >>>>>> :location :AliceWorkstation; >>>>>> :process :fileCreation ; >>>>>> :time "2011-06-15 18:00:02 UTC" ] >>>>>> ) . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ### New graph - Content changed >>>>>> >>>>>> :i0 a :DynamicResource ; >>>>>> :content [ :bytes "New York\nLos Angeles\n" ] ; >>>>>> :name "/home/towns.txt" ; >>>>>> :creator :Alice ; >>>>>> :readBy (:Alice :Bob :Charles :David) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> :i2 a :ViewResource ; >>>>>> :viewOf :i0 ; >>>>>> :name "/home/towns.txt" ; >>>>>> :creator :Alice ; >>>>>> :content [ :bytes "New York\nLos Angeles\n" ] . >>>>>> >>>>>> :i2Provenance a :ProvenanceResource ; >>>>>> :provenanceOf :i2 ; >>>>>> :account :FileSystem ; >>>>>> :processes ( >>>>>> [ :agent :Alice ; >>>>>> :location :server1 ; >>>>>> :process :fileCreation ; >>>>>> :time "2011-06-15 18:00:03 UTC" ] >>>>>> # Lost as :FileSystem metadata only keeps last-modified >>>>>> # [ :agent :Alice ; >>>>>> # :location :server1 ; >>>>>> # :process :fileWrite ; >>>>>> # :time "2011-06-15 18:00:03 UTC" ] >>>>>> [ >>>>>> # :agent :Bob; - not recorded as only owner/creator is >>>>>> kept >>>>>> :location :server1 ; >>>>>> :process :fileWrite ; >>>>>> :time "2011-06-15 18:14:12 UTC" ] >>>>>> ) . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So say there are additional mutable properties such as :readBy >>>>>> above - >>>>>> would you consider those propagating into the view as mutable >>>>>> properties? There could be another view over :i2 for the file before >>>>>> it was read by Charles, where :readBy is an immutable property. >>>>>> >>>>>> The example graph above does not distinguish between mutable and >>>>>> immutable properties - perhaps we shouldn't as they could be >>>>>> difficult >>>>>> to find, identify and measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here :readBy is not kept by neither the log file or file system >>>>>> and is >>>>>> a kind of conceptual property - it could be discovered by simply >>>>>> asking everyone who could have read it, or inferred from traced file >>>>>> usage, like if its sent in an email. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>>>>> School of Computer Science >>>>>> The University of Manchester >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security >>>>>> System. >>>>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 11:51:13 UTC