- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:35:09 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc may have a different perspective, but I think your description of e0 may not capture what's needed: > entity(e0, [ type: "File", location: "/shared/crime.txt", creator: "Alice" ]) >might be interpreted as asserting that the thing denoted by "e0" is a file whose >file system location is "/shared/crime.txt", and which was created by "Alice". e0 is a characterization of a file as a file-in-a-fixed-location - e0 is the file at location /shared/crime.txt. The thing - the file currently at /shared/crime.txt is ambiguously defined in terms of time and processing - if I swap new content to /shared/crime.txt - has the thing moved or has it changed in place. For e0, its clear - e0 can't move. I could also have an entity with fixed content (whatever is at /shared/crime.txt now) which would have moved (or an entity representing the file with fixed location and content that would have ended/been used by the swap PE). Is this consistent with your interpretation? (With Luc's?) To me an entity is an asserted interpretation of how a thing is scoped with respect to time/processing... The fact that a file was moved from location A to B can be asserted by asserting entities that characterize the movable file as file-in-location-A and file-in-location-B and asserting that file-in-location-B wasGeneratedBy a move PE that used file-in-location-A. (If useful, one can also characterize the mobile file as well (perhaps as file-with-fixed-content) and talk about its provenance as well (the series of edits that created it from other fixed-content-files ignoring how those files might have been moved around) and even link the descriptions (via IVPof/complementOf).) Jim
Received on Saturday, 3 September 2011 13:36:01 UTC