- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:26:54 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, I'm looking to close this issue. "proper" provenance is not part of the current prov-o WD. As you know, the building story in prov-o is "starting points, expanded, qualified" and then "collections". Since the notion of "proper" has evolved since F2F2, could you summarize what aspects you think should still be addressed in prov-o? For me, the notion of proper hinges around specOf, where "improper" asserters assert details on less specific entities than they should. Thanks, Tim On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I think that somewhere in the prov-o html document, there should be a section > that talks about "proper" provenance (or whatever its name is), and discusses attributes. > So, as long as we remember to discuss this, I think we can close the issue. > > Luc > > On 05/03/12 22:06, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> Indeed, we no longer make the distinction between characterizing and non-characterizing attributes. >>> >>> In "proper" provenance, attributes are still very important, since they help describe a "partial state". >>> Hence, some constraints exist around attributes: >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#account-and-accountEntity >>> (For instance, see 3rd bullet point). >>> >> Yes, the 3rd bullet and "It is not permitted to add new attributes to a given entity" in the note. >> >> >>> But I think we came to the conclusion that any rdf property for an entity is regarded as an attribute. >>> >> >> >> >>> Isn't it the answer to this issue? >>> >> I hope that it is. I am comfortable with the phrasing in the DM. >> Any rdf property outside of the prov namespace that describes and Entity is "fixed". >> (as you noted, we can "use" it again, so that would make a new attribute within the prov namespace but that did not affect the partial state.) >> >> >> Does this mean we can close the issue? Do we need the DM to say something further in light of this ISSUE? >> >> Thanks, >> -Tim >> >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 05/03/12 19:13, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>>> Luc, >>>> >>>> The distinction between characterizing attributes and non-characterizing attributes has faded in the latest versions of the DM. >>>> >>>> Do you still have concerns about being able to find "frozen" attributes for a given entity? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-89 (what-entity-attributes): How do we find the attributes of an entity? [Formal Model] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/89 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: Formal Model >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, the ontology does not seem to identify these attributes. >>>>> >>>>> To say that these attributes could be found by looking at all the properties for this entity does not work with an open world assumption. >>>>> >>>>> What mechanism do we have to identify these attributes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 15:31:00 UTC