Re: PROV-ISSUE-1 (define-resource): Definition for concept 'Resource' [Provenance Terminology]

Hi Graham,
Responses interleaved.

On 05/24/2011 10:12 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I am pleased to see that some definitions are being uploaded on the 
>> wiki; in particular, I see definitions of resources, which I would
>> like to begin debating during the teleconference this week.
>> For now, I just use this definition:
>>  A resource can be anything that might be identified by URI
>> Going back to the Data Journalism example [1], it is not entirely clear
>> that such a notion of resource encapsulates all the "data entities" that
>> we find here.    I can see r1 and r2 being resources.
>> However, what about f1, which, for instance, could have been generated
>> by an xslt transform over d1. f1 could be a file on the local file 
>> system, which then
>> is made available later as a resource r1.
>> Likewise, lcp1 is a local copy of a serialization of r1.  Again, lcp1 
>> could be a file
>> on the file system.
>> Are lcp1 and f1 resources?
> > [1]
> My default answers would be "Yes" and "Yes", in that they might indeed 
> be identified by URIs, even if they are not generally accessible using 
> those URIs (e.g. lcp1 being a local copy).
> Less clear to me, looking at the example, is whether f1 ("published 
> RDF data") is the same as r1 ("rdf data available as a web 
> resource").  Reading the description, I would be inclined to say that 
> are the same resource, but I can see some scope for differing 
> interpretations depending on the intent here.

Joe Blog may have /home/joe/lcp1.rdf on his file system, and Joe Blog2 
may also have a different file /home/joe/lcp1.rdf
at the same location on his own computer. So the file path does not 
identify the resource. Would you force the minting
of new unique URIs for every local resource?

Also, I would suggest to refer to the emerging RDF terminology:

lcp1 seems to be a g-text (a turtle serialization).

>> Can we classify all the "data entities" in group, with same properties?
>> What are these classes?
> Do you mean formally classify in an ontological sense, or informally 
> as in indicating the intent and differences between the labelled 
> entities?  The latter might be illuminating, but I sense the 
> possibility of a tar pit here if we push too hard.

I meant informally at this stage.

> The AWWW discusses a subclass of resources called "information 
> resources", but this distinction isn't universally appreciated.  It 
> has been used as part of the long-running "http-range-14" discussion 
> [2].  I think this distinction, in some form, might be relevant to the 
> example.
> [2]
> #g
> -- 

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 10:26:47 UTC