RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

> That's exactly what I am saying,

Which of the follow two directions, or something different?

If someone downloads http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37,
Can I assert:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37           <--used--           DownloadPE          <--generatedby--          LocalFileURI

or is it
http://lucsassertions.org/12345 = entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
and
 http://lucsassertions.org/12345       <--used--           DownloadPE          <--generatedby--          LocalFileURI


Would pil let me say http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37 hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?

Or only 

http://lucsassertions.org/12345 hasAuthor "Jim Myers" ?


  Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:36 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> That's exactly what I am saying, your paper is an identified characterized
> thing. And we can make assertions about it. An assertion is expressed with
> the pil:Entity construct.
> 
> I suppose that I can make the following  different assertions about your
> paper. I can further state that they complement each other.
> 
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim
> Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> 
> entity(http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/File:IPAW2010_ITTIA_Myers.pdf,
> [author="Jim Myers", presentationTime="10h15" ])
> 
> entity(http://easychair/uuid, [author="Jim Myers", reviewers={xyz, abc},
> recommendation="accept"])
> 
> 
> What does it sound like?
> 
> Luc
> 
> 
> On 08/23/2011 02:19 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> > Luc,
> > If my IPAW paper is on the web with a URL, why isn't that resource an
> "identified characterized thing"? Are you saying that I must create another ID
> for a pil:entity that is an assertion about that paper before I can record its
> provenance? Or are you just arguing that because entities are assertions, an
> asserter can make them up, i.e. a characterization that is most useful for
> provenance may not be one that is already identified as a resource?
> >
> > I guess I'm looking for the practical impact - are you arguing that we always
> have a layer of indirection when recording provenance of an existing
> resource, or are you arguing something more subtle - use of a resource URL
> in pil as an entity is an assertion that the resource is characterized in a way
> that is suitable for the provenance being recorded (i.e. the resource is
> immutable to the types of processes being recorded and we're not talking,
> for example, about a live web page going through edit processes)?
> >
> >   Jim
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:54 AM
> >> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am joining late this conversation, but I'd like to comment on Paul's
> >> sentence:
> >>
> >>   >  It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page) is a pil:Entity.
> >>
> >> I don't think this makes sense at all. A pil:Entity is a construct of the data
> >> model.
> >>
> >> Definition: An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing.
> >>
> >> So, it is reasonable to compare resource and thing (as in the model
> >> document), but not resource and pil:entity.
> >>
> >> However, we can say a pil:entity is an assertion about a resource.
> >> For a given resource, there may be many pil:entity about that resource.
> >>
> >> Luc
> >>
> >> On 08/11/2011 07:01 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jim, Khalid:
> >>>
> >>> In the model, provenance is described with respect to pil:Entities. In
> >>> the PAQ document, we describe access primarily with respect to the
> Web
> >>> Architecture. It may be the case that the resource (e.g. a web page)
> >>> is a pil:Entity. If so, then the access approach says go ahead and use
> >>> the url of that resource to find the provenance of it within an
> >>> identified set of provenance information.
> >>>
> >>> However, it may be the case that the resource is not a pil:Entity. In
> >>> that case, we provide a mechanism (Target-URIs) that let you associate
> >>> the resource to a pil:Entity (the target) such that you can identify a
> >>> characterization of the resource and thus find it in some provenance
> >>> provenance information.
> >>>
> >>> This approach also lets you have multiple pil:Entities associated with
> >>> a particular resource.
> >>>
> >>> We are just rying to find a simple way to let the accessor know when
> >>> they get some provenance information what they should be looking for
> >>> within that provenance information.
> >>>
> >>> Now, if one says that every resource is  a pil:Entity, we may not need
> >>> this. Is that what you're saying? and can you explain how this is the
> >>> case?
> >>>
> >>> I hope this clarifies what we are trying to enable.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think the gist of the discussion on the modeling side lately and
> >>>> the decision to have 'only Bobs' would shift this towards just
> >>>> talking about the link between provenance and resources with the
> >>>> model then having a mechanism to indicate when some resources are
> >>>> views of others, i.e. one URI is the page content on a given date and
> >>>> the other URI is the live page, but both are resources that can have
> >>>> provenance, and their provenance can contain links that indicate
> >>>> their relationship.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>>
> >>>> *From:*public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
> >>>> [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Khalid
> >>>> Belhajjame
> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:13 AM
> >>>> *To:* Paul Groth
> >>>> *Cc:* public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>> *Subject:* Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> My main concern reading sections 1 and 3, is the use of both resource
> >>>> and target entity. I understand that the idea is that a web resources
> >>>> may be associated with multiple target entities, and that there is a
> >>>> need to identify which target the provenance describes. However,
> >>>> having to go through the two levels resource then entity is a bit
> >>>> confusing, specially for a reader is not aware of the discussions
> >>>> that we had about the two concepts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Suggestion: Would it be really bad if we confine ourselves to the
> >>>> provenance vocabulary and describe how the provenance of an Entity,
> >>>> as opposed to a resource, can be accessed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Other comments:
> >>>>
> >>>> - In the definition of a resource, it said that "a resource may be
> >>>> associated with multiple targets". It would be good if we could
> >>>> clarify this relationship a bit more.
> >>>>
> >>>> - I find the definition of provenance information a bit vague, the
> >>>> body of the definition says pretty much the same thing as the title
> >>>> of the definition. If we don't have a better idea of what can be
> >>>> said, it is probably better to remove it.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Section 3, Second paragraph, "Once provenance information
> >>>> information" ->  "once provenance information"
> >>>>
> >>>> In the same paragraph: "one needs how to identify" ->  "one needs to
> >>>> know how to identify".
> >>>>
> >>>> Khalid
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/08/2011 20:37, Paul Groth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Graham and I have been making some changes to the PAQ document
> [1]
> >>>> that we would like to request feedback on at tomorrow's telecon.
> >>>>
> >>>> In particular, we have updated Sections 1 and 3. We've added a
> >>>> section on core concepts and made section 3 reflect these concepts.
> >>>> We think this may address PROV-ISSUE-46 [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> Please take a look and let us know what you think.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: Section 4 Provenance discovery service is still under heavy
> >>>> editing
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-
> >>>>
> >> access.htm
> >>
> >>>> l [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> 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 Tuesday, 23 August 2011 14:49:10 UTC