Re: prov-issue-11: what is version?

Hi Simon, Luc

I feel users/implementors of the PIL will need to express versioning
information; at least I know I need it :-) now whether that notion of
version is part of the PIL, a profile of the PIL, or a mapping to another
vocabulary is another question.
I like Luc's definition.
Here are some comments on the notion of version (that are
"engineering-driven" I would say) :

   - provenance/history information can be automatically recorded by an
   application, while versioning (in the way I see it) requires someone to say
   "I have reviewed all the modifications and I consider that this artifact is
   now of version x+1" (there is an explicit action involved to create a new
   version);
   - a version is (I think) associated with the notion of publication of the
   artifact (even if some modification happened to version x, you don't
   consider it being version x+1 until you decide to publish it);
   - there is somehow a link between all the atomic modifications made
   between version x and x+1, and version x+1 (so that you can compute/display
   the difference between 2 versions);

Cheers
Thomas

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:42, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Luc,
>
> OK. I'm fine with your definition if the group considers we need one.
>
> As a more general point, I'm unclear about the restrictions of the
> standardisation process. Is there no way to say "this proposal in the
> charter was considered, but was decided to be ambiguous and/or
> superfluous"? Otherwise, WGs must risk producing standards which are
> compliant to the letter of their charters, rather than good and easy
> to adopt. Where we can say less, there is less for people to read,
> misinterpet and disagree with.
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
> On 28 June 2011 17:30, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > If we agree with the definition I suggested (possible Jim's too, I am
> > not sure), it shows that version (or is revision of) is not a primitive
> > notion in PIL, but can be derived from more primitive concepts.
> >
> > I think we still need to take a view on this concept, since it is part
> > of the charter,
> > and we can't simply ignore it.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/28/2011 03:36 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
> >> 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 4487University
> >>>>> 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
> >>> ______________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>


-- 
*Thomas Francart*
*CTO** - Mondeca*
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 92 35 04 - fax +33 (0)1 44 92 02 59
Web: www.mondeca.com
Blog : Leçons de choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com>