- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:16:14 +0200
- To: hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Olaf: Interesting exercise. Thanks. > 1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time at which the > different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted corresponding > statements in my description). Shouldn't the example extended with such > kind of information? For instance, the first processing step could read: > "government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)" I think time is implicit in the example. I don't know if we need to make it explicit. It seems it would be tailoring the example to a representation language... > 2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle > serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it > felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server. > Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must use > an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step 8. > Should we add that to the example? This is interesting. This is how I would want to model the example. But I think it's clear that our language would have to support notions exactly like "Alice downloaded a turtle file". This is the kind of provenance that people say all the time and I think it behoves us to figure out what we would need to support this kind of notion. > 3.) Processing step 7 says "government (gov) publishes an update (d2) of > data (d1) as a new Web resource (r2)". That's inconsistent with processing > steps 1 and 3 where gov publishes a Web resource r1 with RDF data f1 > generated from d1. Question: Was it the intention that gov now publishes > d2 directly; wouldn't it be more consistent if gov were publishing RDF > data f2 which was obtained from d2? Yes, I think this is an error. The government was supposed to follow the same steps in both cases just for consistency. thanks, Paul
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 08:18:07 UTC