- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:59:37 +0100
- To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Simon Miles 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"? Yes, I think it's just fine for us to do that. #g -- ... 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 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 >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 12:59:41 UTC