Re: W3C Provenance Working Group Charter - alternate version for discussion

I am personally happy to talk about the "provenance of a resource", 
which I understand
as the "provenance of the various states that prevail when it is 
accessed".  (I think others
may not necessarily see it in the same way.)

So, going back to the definition:

Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and 
processes involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing 
that resource.

To be more pedantic, I would write:

Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and 
processes involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing 
STATES OF that resource.

However, we tried to come up with a definition that was accessible ... I 
think this addition makes it less accessible.
So, I don't think it is required to change our definition.

Luc

On 17/11/2010 17:36, Yolanda Gil wrote:
> Luc:
>
> That's right, but we did agree to the term "resource" in our 
> definition of provenance [1].  We should be more clear about this, 
> both in the definition and in the charter.
>
> Yolanda
>
>
>
> Yolanda Gil, USC/ISI
> +1-310-448-8794
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Yolanda,
>>
>> Resources on the Web can be stateful whereas artifacts (in OPM) are 
>> stateless.
>> It would not be appropriate to replace artifact by resource.
>>
>> Simon's mapping of DC to OPM offers a nice mechanism to relate a 
>> stateful resource
>> to its states/versions, i.e. artifacts.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 17/11/10 15:53, Yolanda Gil wrote:
>>> Though I think we have already discussed referring to "resource" 
>>> rather than artifact
>