Re: provenance of provenance


Here is what I think:

+1 for dropping 'account'
+1 for introducing 'bundle' (bundle has a weaker semantics than account, 
which I like, the definition of bundle needs to be slightly modified as 
indicated below)
+1 for dropping hasAnnotation and Note
+1 for adding the component on bundles

Regarding the section on bundle in

- The definition of bundle states that "A bundle is a named set of 
provenance descriptions, and is itself an entity, so allowing provenance 
of provenance to be expressed.". I don't think a bundle is necessarily 
an entity. A bundle becomes an entity only when somebody decides to 
describe its provenance. This applies to anything, not just bundles. 
Therefore, I would suggest reformulating the definition to something in 
the lines of "A bundle is a named set of provenance descriptions.". If 
there is a need, then more details specifying that a bundle is an entity 
when its provenance is described can be elaborated when presenting the 
example specifying the provenance of the bundle created by Alice.

- I think that the description of the provenance locator construct is 
outside the scope of the data model. If the group feels that there is a 
need for having such a construct, then I think that it will be more 
appropriate to try to adapt it and include it within the PAQ document.

Typo: in the definition of provenance location: relatation -> relation

Thanks, khalid

> On Thu, 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 Thursday, 17 May 2012 09:54:52 UTC