Re: PROV-ISSUE-201: Section 8 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm]

Hi Satya. It's now closed. I note the identifier discussion will 
continue elsewhere.
Luc

On 01/11/2012 11:44 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> I will move to the discussions in ISSUE-183. I am fine with closing 
> this specific issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Satya,
>
>     I believe that now the two issues you have flagged here have been
>     addressed.
>
>     For item 1, we have rephrased as outlined.
>
>     For item 2, we have clarified the notion of identifier, see latest
>     email in ISSUE-183.
>
>     I therefore propose to close this issue (or continue the debate on
>     ISSUE-183,
>     if required).
>
>     Cheers,
>     Luc
>
>
>     On 08/12/11 11:17, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
>         Hi Satya,
>
>         On 12/07/2011 02:24 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>         wrote:
>
>             PROV-ISSUE-201: Section 8 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm]
>
>             http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/201
>
>             Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>             On product: prov-dm
>
>             Hi,
>             The following are my comments for Section 8 of the PROV-DM
>             (as on Dec 5)
>
>             Section 8.
>             1. "A resource is an instance of an entity in the world."
>
>             Comment: This is not correct. Resource, identified by a
>             URI, can include abstractions, for example class of
>             instances - Car, Computer etc.
>
>
>         The word instance is not used here as in instance vs class.
>         Will try to reprharse: what about
>
>         "In the context of PROV-DM, a resource is just a thing in the
>         world
>
>
>             2. "A given identifier identifies a single entity within
>             the scope of an account. Hence, below, all entities
>             records have been given the same identifier but appear in
>             the scope of different accounts."
>
>             Comment: This is clearly against the notion of strict
>             monotonicity in RDF as defined in RDF Semantics
>             specification. In addition, this is also opposite to the
>             global scope of URIs as described in the Web Architecture
>             (I had raised this issue earlier also).
>
>
>         There was a typo, and this sentence should ahve said "A given
>         identifier identifies a single entity RECORD within the scope
>         of an account. Hence, below, all entities records have been
>         given the same identifier but appear in the scope of different
>         accounts.".
>
>         This said, can you be specific, i simply don't understand what
>         you are saying.
>
>         Surely, in rdf, with named graphs, you can write (sorry, can't
>         write in rdf language):
>
>         graph1:
>           ex:report isLikedBy Luc
>
>         graph2:
>           ex:report isDislikedBy Satya
>
>         We can likewise take different perspective on a same resource
>         in two different accounts.
>
>         But, we have now move again into PROV-ISSUE-183.
>
>         Luc
>
>             Thanks.
>
>             Best,
>             Satya
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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