- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:36:45 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
OK, but I think that defining it generally even in a profile may go too far. Given that "version" means quite different things in different application contexts, as I think you capture by the notion of typed process executions in your definition, is there a value in defining it generally at all? I could imagine it may be defined in various ways in a few different domain-specific profiles, and there could be a mappings from the PIL model to version in DC and elsewhere etc., but defining it as part of the model seems to help no-one while adding to the complexity. This differs from time, where though it has different conceptions in different domains, I could imagine a default conception defined in a profile would be useful for applying the model to common kinds of web resource. Thanks, Simon On 28 June 2011 15:25, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > I was just trying to use version as an example of IVP in the last email, hence it shouldn't be different. Looking at whether we need version explicitly as a concept - perhaps it is a 'profile' like time... > > Jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Miles >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:18 AM >> To: Provenance Working Group WG >> Subject: Re: prov-issue-11: what is version? >> >> Luc, Jim, >> >> I notice that you two take different views on what the concept "version" is >> intended to describe. With the example things: >> T1. The government data >> T2. The government data with incorrect values >> T3. The government data with corrected values Under Luc's definition T3 is >> a version of T2, but under Jim's definition T3 is a version of T1. >> >> I'm not clear that "version", under either definition, is beneficial to keep in >> the model. Jim's definition seems to be only subtley if at all different from >> IPVT, while Luc's is distinct but just a simple composition of other concepts >> which could be recognised by any query. >> >> My counter-proposal would be to remove "version" from the model. >> Simplicity of the standard is surely a good thing where possible. >> >> If that is unacceptable, I think that Luc's definition makes sense but would >> be more clearly called "is revision of" or similar. >> >> Thanks, >> Simon >> >> On 27 June 2011 16:11, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Exploiting the most recent definitions of Derivation and IVP of, I >> > tried to propose a definition of version. >> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptVersion#Definition_by_Luc >> > >> > What do you think? >> > Regards, >> > Luc >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ______________________________________________________________ >> ________ >> > 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 > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > 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 Tuesday, 28 June 2011 14:37:12 UTC