Re: PROV-ISSUE-15 (define-views-or-account): Definition for Concept 'Views or accounts' [Provenance Terminology]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the comments. Answers are interleaved.

> I was wondering why an account must be from one source.

Just because it seemed most intuitive, but maybe an account could have
multiple sources, as long as we are clear what that would mean.

If we meant multiple actors may agree with an account and wouldn't
describe what occurred any differently from the same perspective, then
that's true but there would still be one actor which originally
provided the account.

If we meant that multiple actors may be "co-authors" of an account,
that would be more reasonable. I guess I was considering such a group
as a single source, but I agree this may not be the clearest way to
define things. Of course, an account can have a its own provenance
where it can be specified in detail who contributed what and how.

> I think a source maybe an annotation on an account.

That's an issue separate from concept definition, surely. "Annotation"
applies to some data (a serialised account), and "annotating with a
source" requires having an identifier for the source, which my
definition of account does not require.

> I think a more general definition would be.
> - An account is a record of something that has occurred from a
> particular perspective.

I'm fine with that definition. It still feels like the definition
implies rather than makes explicit something significant, i.e. that
the account comes from one or a group of sources, but I don't have a
strong argument why it needs to be explicit.

> I agree with the notion that every description of some occurrence must
> be part of an account but I don't think that needs to be identified.

Again, I think this goes beyond the concept definition to design
decisions, but maybe we can't separate the two. It depends what you
mean by "identified" as to whether I agree with you :-).

If you mean that there doesn't need to be any metadata about the
account(s) each occurrence is referred to in, such as the source of
the account, then I agree it may be too much to require.

But if you mean that we may not be able to distinguish whether two
assertions about what has occurred are from the same source and
perspective or not (i.e. same accounts or not), then I'm not convinced
- it seems to go against the purpose of providing provenance to aid
trust and interpretation to lose such distinctions.

Further, if you provide no identifier for an account, then don't you
lose (or make much harder) the possibility of providing metadata about
it in the future? So, I would argue that all occurrences, assertions,
or whatever parts comprise provenance information, should be part of
at least one account, and that those accounts should be given
identifiers, even if no other information about the account is
provided.

Thanks,
Simon

> thoughts?
> Paul
>
> Simon Miles wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> My proposed starting definition:
>>   - An account is a record of something that has occurred provided by
>> one source and taking one perspective in describing what occurred.
>>
>> Notes:
>>   - I would expect the provenance of a resource (or whatever provenance
>> is of) to comprise a set of accounts or parts of accounts, as all the
>> information within that provenance has to come from somewhere and take
>> some perspective.
>>   - The definition does not require that the source be identified -
>> whether we require it to be seems a design decision not part of
>> concept definition.
>>   - The same occurrence (e.g. a "resource" or "process execution")
>> could be referred to in multiple accounts. I would expect it to be
>> decision of the account sources whether they are referring to the same
>> thing in their assertions.
>>   - "Perspective" could be rephrased as something more concrete. An
>> example of perspective (from OPM) is the granularity of description:
>> whether what has occurred is described coarsely or in detail. However,
>> there may be other useful distinctions in perspective.
>>   - Every occurrence included in some provenance data would be part of
>> at least one account (if it had not been documented, it could not be
>> included). This may be a distinction from OPM, where I believe
>> entities can be included in provenance without being in an account.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 20 May 2011 08:38, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-15 (define-views-or-account): Definition for Concept 'Views or accounts'   [Provenance Terminology]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/15
>>>
>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>> On product: Provenance Terminology
>>>
>>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Views or accounts' as a core concept of the provenance interchange language to be standardized (see http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter).
>>>
>>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>> How do we define the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>> Where does concept 'Views or accounts' appear in ProvenanceExample?
>>> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>>
>>> Wiki page:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptViewsOrAccounts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 13:33:28 UTC