W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > May 2011

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:30:58 +0200
To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Message-Id: <201105121331.01270.hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Hey Paul,

On Thursday 12 May 2011 10:16:14 Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Olaf:
> Interesting exercise. Thanks.
> > 1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time at which the
> > different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted corresponding
> > statements in my description). Shouldn't the example extended with such
> > kind of information? For instance, the first processing step could read:
> > "government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)"
> I think time is implicit in the example. I don't know if we need to make
> it explicit. It seems it would be tailoring the example to a
> representation language...

I don't see that.

If (some of) the processing steps were mentioning such a time, I would have 
added corresponding  prv:performedAt  triples to my example description. Since 
there were no such times, I omitted these triples because I wanted the 
description to be as close to the textual description as possible. What I want 
to say is, without such times we cannot see whether a model/vocabulary would 
support representing them.

> > 2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle
> > serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it
> > felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server.
> > Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must use
> > an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step 8.
> > Should we add that to the example?
> This is interesting. This is how I would want to model the example. But
> I think it's clear that our language would have to support notions
> exactly like "Alice downloaded a turtle file". This is the kind of
> provenance that people say all the time and I think it behoves us to
> figure out what we would need to support this kind of notion.

Got it.  ;-)   ... and I agree.


> > 3.) Processing step 7 says "government (gov) publishes an update (d2) of
> > data (d1) as a new Web resource (r2)". That's inconsistent with
> > processing steps 1 and 3 where gov publishes a Web resource r1 with RDF
> > data f1 generated from d1. Question: Was it the intention that gov now
> > publishes d2 directly; wouldn't it be more consistent if gov were
> > publishing RDF data f2 which was obtained from d2?
> Yes, I think this is an error. The government was supposed to follow the
> same steps in both cases just for consistency.
> thanks,
> Paul
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:59 UTC