W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-149 (revision-asserter): Why does revision record include an asserter? [Data Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:12:26 -0500
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14A7CB3E-6DC8-4CC3-95D3-2F6711769DE5@rpi.edu>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>

On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Simon Miles wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> A follow-up clarification regarding the same issue.
> 
> If entity Z is a revision of entity A, with an agent declaring Z a new
> revision, and the resource has been through multiple changes before
> this declaration, with the intermediate stages being entities B, C,
> D... Y, then should the wasRevisionOf be asserted solely between Z and
> A, or also between Z and B, Z and C etc.?


I would say that an asserter need not assert between every each pair AB, BC, etc., -- nor should they be inferred -- since the wasRevisionOf exists to highlight particular Entities along the derivation chain*.

-Tim

*since wasRevisionOf is a specialization of wasDerivedFrom.


> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> On 11 November 2011 13:14, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Luc,
>> 
>> OK, but the text says the agent has "responsibility for declaring that
>> the former is variant of the latter", and I'm not clear if that's the
>> same as the "creating/deciding" you refer to in your mail.
>> 
>> I understand that the agent is responsible for some process, but which
>> process are we not making explicit? There may be multiple processes,
>> controlled by different agents, to get from one revision of a document
>> to another. So is this just for asserting the cases where there is a
>> final step (process) in which one agent "creates" the new revision
>> entity by "signing off" the changes since the previous revision?
>> 
>> If this is the case, I get the intent and my issue can be closed, but
>> I don't think the text is clear enough. It would be good to describe
>> the situation above, to know that it is here that the concept applies,
>> and pinpoint the "declaring agent" within it.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> 
>> On 11 November 2011 12:56, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>> it's very much in line with the notion of responsibility in Yolanda's
>>> email yesterday.
>>> We are talking about the agent who is responsible for creating/deciding
>>> a new revision.
>>> But here, because it's a convenience relation, we don't make the process
>>> explicit.
>>> So, the agent responsible for the new revision doesn't have to be the
>>> asserter at all.
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> On 11/11/2011 12:28 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
>>>> Hi Luc,
>>>> 
>>>> OK, but even if we distinguish "the agent who decides that a fact is
>>>> true" from "the agent who asserts that fact", then I don't see why
>>>> Revision is any different from any other assertion.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 November 2011 12:22, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>> It's not the case that the responsible agent is the one making the
>>>>> assertion.
>>>>> Luc
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/11/2011 12:01 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-149 (revision-asserter): Why does revision record include an asserter? [Data Model]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/149
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>>>>>> On product: Data Model
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Revision record contains its own asserter, but it is unclear why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Deciding whether something is made available as a revision of something else usually involves an agent who represents someone in the world who takes responsibility for declaring that the former is variant of the latter...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A revision record...
>>>>>> may refer to a responsible agent with identifier ag."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The agent appears to be just the entity deciding whether to make the assertion or not (whether one entity is a revision of another). This is no different from any other assertion: it is always in some asserter's perspective that the assertion is true. We don't include the asserter explicitly in Used, Generated, Derived or other records, so why do we for Revision?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr Simon Miles
>> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 20:13:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC