Re: provenance of provenance



Regarding proposal:

+0 to dropping 'account'
+0 to introducing 'bundle' to rename 'account' (I think 'account' is a satisfactory name and is more "provenance-y" than the mechanical notion of 'bundle'; note that 'bundle' was first introduced only to distinguish itself from the construct-heave 'account' at the time.)
+1 to dropping hasAnnotation and Note
+1 to adding the component on bundles (I'm leaning towards 'account' now that we've shucked the heavy widgets it once had.)

(I'm happy with either 'bundle' or 'account')

Comments on the actual text is below.



"As a named bundle is a set of descriptions"
"As a bundle is a named set of descriptions"

"bundle uuid:03" looks inconsistent with "agg:bundle3"


"hasProvenanceIn(ex:report1, -, -, -, ""^xsd:anyURI)"

Could we add another example where your Provenance-URI itself defines a bundle?

hasProvenanceIn(ex:report1, ex:bundle34, -, -, ""^xsd:anyURI)

Can you make the visualization tool use its own URIs for the graphics depicting the reports?

  entity(ex:report1, [viz:color="orange"])
  hasProvenanceIn(ex:report1, obs:bundle7, -, -, -)

  entity(ex:report2, [viz:color="blue"])
  hasProvenanceIn(ex:report2, obs:bundle7, -, -, -)
  entity(tool:graphic1, [viz:color="orange"])
  hasProvenanceIn(tool:graphic1, obs:bundle7, ex:report1, -, -)

  entity(tool:graphic2, [viz:color="blue"])
  hasProvenanceIn(ex:graphic2, obs:bundle7, ex:report2, -, -)


Why is it necessary that:

"it is necessary for it to have an identifier in the first place (ex:d)."

On May 10, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Dear all,
> We are seeking feedback on text regarding bundles (allowing provenance
> of provenance to be expressed).
> It is addressing ISSUES-257, ISSUE-260, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-297.
> We will respond to these issues individually, shortly.
> Cheers,
> Luc

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:35:32 UTC