- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:26:10 +0100
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,
I was wondering about your notion of "normal attributes" and the notion
of "underlying Thing".
The use case we discuss, where a piece of software (rating tool) reads
some provenance and,
with application-specific reasoning, rates entities blurs the distinction.
In the example:
agent(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, [perf:rating="good"]) // this is the
rated agent
specializationOf(tool:Bob-2011-11-16, ex:Bob, ex:run1) // or
contextualizationOf
The rated agent tool:Bob-2011-11-16 is generated after the tool has
processed the contents of ex:run1.
In that case, the syntax, by this I mean the bundle, is part of the
semantics.
Isn't this inevitable with "online uses" of provenance, where processing
of provenance helps
makes decisions in the application domain?
Luc
On 06/28/2012 04:35 AM, James Cheney wrote:
>
> I don't view the property "being described in bundle b" as the same
> kind of attribute as normal attributes - to me, attributes describe
> properties of the underlying Thing, in the semantics, not properties
> of the entities describing the Thing in the syntax. Of course, not
> all of us believe in Things.
>
> One can easily get paradoxes by blurring this distinction [1].
>
--
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
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 08:26:50 UTC