- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:45:56 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 07/11/2011 08:57, Luc Moreau wrote: > 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. That would be contradictory at the level of RDF. I think any attempt to combine documents with such usage would render the result formally meaningless (or at least fail to formally convey the intended meaning). #g -- > If we want to avoid this, then it must be a requirement that new URIs are minted > for all > entities. But I thought the WG wanted to move away for that, since it prevents > lightweight assertions > of provenance. > > So, the minting burden, i think, is put at the level of accounts. > BTW, prov-dm is currently not suggesting that, since it says that account > identifiers are also scoped, > but I think this is not good. > > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:17:00 UTC