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

Response below:

On May 24, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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?

I believe these two concrete entities/resources are both exemplars of an entity/resource that represents lcp1.rdf (content and physical form).  It seems we would want to model the provenance both of concrete, discrete entities as well as entities that describe the embodiment of information/content in a specific form.

To use the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) terminology to clarify my remarks (just as a reference)

FRBR Group 1 Entities:

Work is a “distinct intellectual or artistic creation.” (IFLA 1998)
Expression is “the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is ‘realized.’” (IFLA 1998)
Manifestation is “the physical embodiment of an expression of a work. As an entity, manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form.” (IFLA 1998)
Item is “a single exemplar of a manifestation. The entity defined as item is a concrete entity.” (IFLA 1998)

I believe these two entities are two different frbr:Items that are both exemplars of the same frbr:Manifestation.  

It is clear we should be able to represent provenance for frbr:Items (the file on my computer, and how it came to exist as a concrete entity"), but how should the model address the provenance of frbr:Manifestations?  How would you model the provenance of the manifestation entity "Provenance for Dummies, 2nd Edition - paperback" vs the provenance of the concrete entity "Provenance for Dummies, 2nd Edition" paperback sitting on my bookshelf?

I am not recommending (nor opposed to) the usage of FRBR terminology in our discussions, I bring it up here just to clarify the question I am trying to ask.

FRBR wikipedia article -


Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 09:18:52 UTC