- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:30:12 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham, all,
The staged document can be found at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/WD-prov-links-20121211/Overview.html
Let me know if you find any bug.
I have added links to the dm/constraints sections that use the term
'aspect' and I have also
added its informalmeaning.
I didn't understand the conflict you suggested. Can you clarify?
Finally, the notions of observer, perspective, context are a very
significant departure from what
we currently have, and the dm in general. I don't feel comfortable with
them in the document.
Luc
On 11/29/2012 06:15 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/prov-links.html
>
> My comments are focused on Section 2, Conceptual Definition of Mention
>
> [[
> An entity e1 may be mentioned in a bundle b, which contains some
> descriptions about this entity e1: how e1 was generated and used,
> which activities e1 is involved with, the agents e1 is attributed to,
> etc. Other bundles may contain other descriptions about the same
> entity e1. Some applications may want to augment the descriptions of
> entity e1 found in bundle b with other information. To this end, PROV
> allows a new entity e2 to be created and defined as a specialization
> of the preceding entity e1, and which presents at least an additional
> aspect: the bundle b containing some descriptions of e1. With this
> relation, applications that process e2 can know that the attributes of
> e2 may have been computed according to the descriptions of e1 in b.
> ]]
>
> "Some applications may want to augment the descriptions of entity e1
> found in bundle b with other information" appears to be in conflict
> with the earlier statement "Other bundles may contain other
> descriptions about the *same* entity" (my emphasis).
>
> [[
> The mention ◊ of an entity in a bundle (containing a description of
> this entity) is another entity that is a specialization of the former
> and that presents the bundle as a further additional aspect.
>
> An entity is interpreted with respect to a bundle's description in a
> domain specific manner. The mention of this entity with respect to
> this bundle offers the opportunity to specialize it according to some
> domain-specific interpretation.
> A mention of an entity in a bundle results in a specialization of this
> entity with extra fixed aspects, including the bundle that it is
> described in.
> ]]
>
> I have two concerns here:
>
> This definition leans heavily on the notion of "fixed aspects", but
> this term is not actually defined anywhere.
>
> Philosophically, I have difficulties with the implication that simply
> by being mentioned in a bundle somehow changes the entity itself.
> Suppose you are looking at an elephant, and writing down a description
> of that elephant. Then I come along and look at the elephant from a
> different perspective, and write down a description of what I see. We
> may put down different descriptions, but we are describing the *same*
> elephant. The fact of me doing that doesn't change the elephant in any
> way, nor does it affect the validity of your description concerning
> the elephant. Yet the idea that an observation is a new "fixed
> aspect" seems to suggest that this is act of observation makes it a
> different elephant. (Not allowing Heisenberg/observer effects here.)
>
> What I think is missing from your description is some notion of the
> perspective ("observation context") from which the descriptions in a
> bundle are derived.
>
> So here's my attempt to try and capture something of this:
>
> [[
> Statements about an entity are based on information available from
> some perspective, and the extent of information available may be
> affected by the context of an observer that records it. The mention
> construct provides a way to make additional statements about the
> entity from the same context or perspective as other statements in a
> bundle. For example, one bundle may contain statements about a web
> page accessed from a network connection in USA which is presented
> containing comments authored by Americans, and another may contain
> statements about the same page accessed at the same time from China,
> which may contain a different set of comments. Deducible provenance
> about the contributors to this page may thus vary based on where it is
> accessed from.
>
> The mention construct provides a way to associate this additional
> contextual information with an entity, such as the location from which
> it has been accessed when making some provenance assertions.
> ]]
>
> #g
> --
>
>
--
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 Friday, 30 November 2012 17:30:56 UTC