Re: provenance of provenance

Hi Luc and all,

Here are my feedback to the proposal.

+0 to dropping 'account'
+0 to introducing 'bundle' to rename 'account' (Same as others, I'm 
happy with either 'bundle' or 'account'.)
+1 to dropping hasAnnotation and Note
+1 to adding the component on bundles (Nice to separate concerns.)

Some details comments re

1. I like the definition of bundle as "a named set of provenance 
descriptions". But I am lost with the two sections 4.6.1 Bundle 
Declaration and 4.6.2 Bundle Description. What different aspects are 
they meant to describe?

And what does this "A bundle description is of the form 
entity(id,[prov:type='prov:Bundle', attr1=val1, ...]) where id is an 
identifier denoting a bundle, a type prov:Bundle and an optional set of 
attribute-value pairs ((attr1, val1), ...) representing additional 
information about this bundle. " mean? How is this meant to be different 
from the "declaration" in the previous section?

2. the locator section.

1) I felt the definition of the term hasProvenanceIn is a bit heavy. It 
is introduced as being inspired by the PAQ document, but I wonder 
whether it is necessary to bring in all the different pieces, like 
service, target etc, into the definition of the term. We don't model 
services, targets or those sort of things in the model. Then how can 
they be used in the current proposed way?

I am thinking about how to implement the term in prov-o, and I wonder 
whether the following definition would be sufficient to achieve the 
purpose of using this term /in the context of DM/.

provenance locator, written hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, attrs), 

     id: an identifier for a provenance locator;
     subject: an identifier denoting something (entity, activity, agent, 
or relatation instance);
     bundle: an optional identifier (bundle) for a bundle.

2) Can the subject of hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, attrs) be a 
provenance triple, such as <report1 wasGeneratedBy Bob>?

(I really don't know which terminology I can use here. Apologize for 
having to use "triple" here. Please let me know if we have a better term 
for this.)

Yes, we can treat that triple as a "Bundle". Would that mean that I will 
need to create a Bundle for every triple that I want to point out where 
it came from or which bundle it came from?


-- Jun

On 10/05/2012 22:14, 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 Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:44:47 UTC