- 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