- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:40:35 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Since the proposals are not mutually exclusive, I'll assume you're asking for
views (or votes) on each of the proposals separately..
On 24/01/2012 13:56, Luc Moreau wrote:
> All,
>
> Paul and I have a strong desire to resolve the issue related to identifiers
> before F2F2.
>
> For information, we agreed on the following last week:
> / *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all
> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise)
> SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or
> introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." (intent) /
>
> So, the next challenge (ISSUE-225) is to agree on the objects that belong to
> universe of discourse.
> To facilitate the call on Thursday, we are putting forward a series of
> proposals. Can
> you express your support or not in the usual manner. On Thursday we will discuss
> proposals for which we didn't reach consensus.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
+1
> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
> discourse
No clear view; what's the driving use-case?
> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains,
> Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation,
> Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After
> removal belong to the universe of discourse.
I'm inclined to say not, but I'm not sure I understand the proposal
> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
> discourse
-1
These seem to me to be statements *about* things in the domain of discourse.
Or do misunderstand the intent?
> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
> This includes Account Record.
+1
> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse
-0 That is, my sense is that the term "thing" is used to capture an intuition
all records ultimately describe facets of "things" in the real world, but the
formalization is in terms of entities. It is not clear to me whether or not
"thing" needs to be formally distinguished, or whether it's just there to
provide the guiding intuition.
But if we find that we do need to make statements about "things" as well as
"entities", then my vote would be -1; i.e. that things *do* belong to the domain
of discourse. But I'd prefer it if this isn't needed (on grounds of simplicity).
> Note
>
> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse
+1
> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of
> discourse.
+1
> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse.
I'm not sure about this. I think I agree, but I'd be inclined to say nothing
rather than make the assertion that they cannot be. I think it all rather
depends on whether attributes are something that have an existence outside of
the assertions (records) that use them.
...
In summary, I think it's fairly clear that artifacts (entities), activities and
agents are key elements in the domain of discourse. Some things, like PROV
records, clearly are not (to me). Some of the other things are less clear, but
in each case I'd start with a working assumption that they're not until we find
a specific requirement that they be explicitly related to (rather than just
descriptive of) other things in the domain of discourse.
#g
--
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 23:13:38 UTC