- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:36:37 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:57 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Resources are identified by a URI. It has been suggested that perspectives we > take over a given resource, i.e. entities, may use the resource URI as their own > identifier (provided this does not result in clash names, as suggested in last section > of prov-dm document). > > Hence, two different entities could be asserted by two different asserters in different accounts, > and both may have chosen the same URI to identify them. > > If we want to avoid this I'm not trying to avoid this. > , then it must be a requirement that new URIs are minted for all > entities. This sounds like a bad requirement. > But I thought the WG wanted to move away for that, since it prevents lightweight assertions > of provenance. Agreed! > > So, the minting burden, i think, is put at the level of accounts. I think I agree here. You mean that when someone mentions an Entity in an Account, they should consider the ramifications of minting a new unknown vs. reusing an entity they say from somewhere else? > BTW, prov-dm is currently not suggesting that, since it says that account identifiers are also scoped, I've run into problems with "scoped" a few times and I know others have, too. Can something be added to DM to clarify what it means? > but I think this is not good. I couldn't say without a better understanding of "scoped". Thanks, Tim > > Luc > > On 11/06/2011 11:49 PM, Tim Lebo wrote: >> Hi, Luc! >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 6, 2011, at 17:44, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> We need to explore this in detail. >>> To me, it is crucial to be able to assert that entity e1 in account acc1 is complementOf entity e2 in acc2. >>> >> Absolutely. >> >> >>> How do you propose doing this? >>> >> Would the one triple >> >> :e1 prov:wasComplementOf :e2 . >> >> work? This would stand independent of what account the entities are in -- which gets to the point I was making that the asserter needs to make distinct URIs and not depend on some account-based scoping mechanism to establish its identity. >> >> Perhaps I am misinterpreting DM again from a "too RDF" perspective like the literal versus URI discussions earlier today. >> >> Best, >> Tim >> >> >>> >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 6 Nov 2011, at 21:24, "Timothy Lebo"<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> By "appropriately scoped", I mean "predefined, consciously selected; URIs". >>>> >>>> the note "refer to an identifier in the scope of a given account" sounds like we are going to permit lazy naming that can be computed in the future, which current named graph implementations do not support. >>>> >>>> -Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by appropriately scoped? >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I propose that we require the asserters to define appropriately-scoped URIs for their identifiers. Letting them be lazy up front will cause headaches when actually trying to use it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > -- > 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 > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 15:37:19 UTC