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

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:43:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4DCBC7D0.5040203@gmail.com>
To: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
CC: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Hi Olaf,

Ok I see your point. I've added a time to the conversion step as you 


Olaf Hartig wrote:
> 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.
> Greetings,
> Olaf
>>> 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 12:50:47 UTC

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