Re: Issue 89 - why?

Hi Jim (your mail was not copied to the mailing list, but it is below).

We don't have the immutable requirement for annotations. So, yes the 
icon may change.
However, the annotation does not have to be an observation of something 
in the world.
Our example is about *rendering* provenance graphs.

Luc

On 19/09/11 17:05, Myers, Jim wrote:
> Luc,
> Are non-characterizing properties immutable? If not, what will it mean for an entity to have an icon that is not required to be fixed? If it is fixed, what difference from characterizing is important?
>
> For non-fixed attributes (assuming that's the goal), would it be sufficient to have an entity corresponding to an observation that is fully fixed that is a complementOf the one of interest. E.g. a car is a complementOf a car with attribute "surface:wet" that was observed at some point? I.e. like your icon, we know it was observed to have that attribute at some point, but since it is not characterizing, it could change. We can use those attributes for discovery though with a bit of indirection - find an entity whose complement had the attribute means find the entity that was observed to have that attribute/value at some point in time. I guess two questions: is this equivalent to the meaning you want from non-characterizing attributes? Does it present a usable alternative to having them in the model, or a way to frame non-characterizing attributes as a syntactic shortcut?
>
>   Jim
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
>> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35 AM
>> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue 89 - why?
>>
>> Hi Khalid and Graham,
>>
>> Attributes help characterize a thing in the world.
>> Provenance helps explain why these attributes have specific values.
>> In particular, constraints such as
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-
>> file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#derivation-attributes
>> link attribute values to something in the provenance of an entity.
>>
>> In addition, there may be arbitrary properties that are not attributes, i.e.
>> they are not characterizing a thing.
>> For instance, the model document mentions the icon used to render an entity
>> graphically.
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-
>> file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-
>> annotationAssociation
>>
>> If an entity is given arbitrary properties,  I think it's important whether this is
>> a characterizing attribute (for which we may find an explanation in the
>> provenance), or whether this is a non characterizing property (which may
>> have nothing to with the thing in the world, as the icon example).
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
>> On 17/09/11 11:55, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>      
>>> On 17/09/2011 08:07, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>        
>>>> I've been reading some of the discussion of Issue 89:
>>>>
>>>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/89
>>>>
>>>> which seems to my mind be getting rather like a counting of
>>>> angels-on-pinheads, and I wonder if we're not in danger of
>>>> over-ontologizing here.
>>>>
>>>> Going back to the original issue, I see:
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>> The conceptual model defines an entity in terms of an identifier and
>>>> a list of attribute-value pairs. It is indeed crucial for the
>>>> asserter to identify the attributes that have been frozen in a given
>>>> entity.
>>>> ]]
>>>>
>>>> Why is it so crucial to identify what attributes have been frozen?
>>>>
>>>> What practical application of provenance is prevented is we don't
>>>> require this?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I second that. Furthermore, I don't see the point of declaring
>>> attributes that are not instanciated in the context of the entity.
>>>
>>> Khalid
>>>
>>>        
>>>> #g
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>        
>

Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 16:48:39 UTC