Re: writing a simple example in prov-o, help

Sent from T-Mobile G2 with Google

Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

>Hi Simon,
>
>The point is that two different people are asserting it. We can't 
>maintain consistency across the people. This is why we have accounts, no?
>
>I think one way to handle this is to have a best practice where we 
>suggest people use permalinks (see 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permalink) or cool-uris.  Indeed, to me 
>this is probably the best way to introduce entities.
>
>So overall, my suggestion would be to maintain simplicity but suggest 
>people use uris that refer to content that doesn't change.
>
>But please bring this up in interoperability page.
>
>cheers,
>Paul
>
>
>
>Simon Miles wrote:
>> Paul, all,
>>
>> Just to properly understand why what is being discussed is important,
>> I wanted to expand your example to a larger use case.
>>
>> At time T, you say something about a video on your blog and assert:
>> <http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/why-provenance-is-fundamental-for-people/>
>> prov:wasDerivedFrom
>> <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html>.
>>
>> At time T+1, the video is edited to introduce a previously missing
>> segment that undermines the message of your blog entry. The video URI
>> stays the same.
>>
>> At time T+2, I say something about the (updated) video on my blog and assert:
>> <http://inkings.org/2011/10/08/why-provenance-is-pointless/>
>> prov:wasDerivedFrom
>> <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html>.
>>
>> We could then observe:
>>   - Even if the above use case doesn't happen to you, by using the
>> simplest form of provenance you are opening the possibility of it
>> happening and you would not even know about it.
>>   - It doesn't help to say that the video owners shouldn't use the same
>> URL, because it is not under the control of either those creating or
>> consuming the provenance.
>>   - There is nothing apparently wrong with either of our assertions
>> (except the lack of characterisation), and I don't know anything about
>> your blog so don't take it into account in my blog's provenance.
>>   - It seems reasonable criteria for interoperability that if you read
>> Prov-DM from two separate sources referring to the same entity, then
>> either there is an error in (at least) one or they are mutually
>> consistent. I couldn't see what this would correspond to in the
>> interoperability discussion [1] though.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Interoperability
>>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 15:29:57 UTC