RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 10:06 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Paul Groth; Khalid Belhajjame; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> Myers, Jim wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I think everything is a pil:Entity! Nominally a living page could have
> > direct provenance - when did it first appear, who approved it getting
> > added to the overall site, when did it get downloaded,  used in a
> > backup process, etc. Just because we have an open world and we (some
> > asserter) may not have provenance to directly associate with it
> > doesn't mean it is not/can't be a pil:Entity. To look at it backwards,
> > if IVPOf fits the need, why would you not want to consider the living
> > page to be a pil:Entity.
> 
> +1 the above.  (Except that I'm unconvinced that there's a *need* to
> +distinguish
> pil:Entity from rdf:Resource, but I can live with the notion that a pil:Entity is
> something about which provenance assertions can be (or are) made.)

I don't think there is - the only distinction I see is that provenance may be the only reason to identify some entities so they may not already be identified/existing resources.  
> 
> > With everything being able to be a pil:Entity, I think in the
> > following
> > way: For resource X, if I want to talk about aspects of it that are
> > immutable, I directly associate provenance statements with it via
> > used, generatedby, derived.
> 
> +1 if I understand this correctly.
> 
> >... If I want to talk about its mutable aspects, I  create additional
> >characterizations (e.g. versions for content) -  additional
> >pil:Entitities that may also already be resources themselves  or may
> >just be being invented/defined for provenance purposes (e.g. if I  am
> >not already tracking versions of my live page as part of my site
> >operations, I identify them just for provenance purposes so I can talk
> >about when each version was created, read, etc.) and associate them
> >with  the original via IVPof relationships and then use
> >used/generatedby on  the characterizations.
> 
> +1
> 
>  > ... If X is really just the context or is controlling
> > some other process we have agent and participation.
> 
> Er, you lost me there.  But overall, I think I fully agree with what you're saying
> here.
> 
Just pointing out the other relationships in the model - an existing resource on the web might be the entity we consider to be the agent controlling a PE or something that participates in a PE. (A resource on the web might be involved in used/generated/derived, IVPof, or controls/participatesIn relationships...)

 Jim

> #g
> --
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Groth [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> >> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:13 AM
> >> To: Myers, Jim
> >> Cc: Khalid Belhajjame; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>
> >> Hi Jim,
> >>
> >> "the targetURI discussion is about relating the living page to its
> > versions which
> >> then have provenance"
> >>
> >> that's a fairly good summary.
> >>
> >> Can you clarify that Complement Of (was IVPof) works on things that
> > are not
> >> pil:Entities? I thought it only applies to pil:Entity?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>>> Now, if one says that every resource is  a pil:Entity, we may not
> >>>> need
> >>> this
> >>>
> >>> That, or that every pil:Entity can be a resource (or both). As
> > before
> >>> if I have a living web page with some URL, it may have different
> >>> versions that have different (but related) provenance. If I
> > understand
> >>> correctly, the targetURI discussion is about relating the living
> > page
> >>> to its versions which then have provenance (it also makes the
> >>> assumption that there are resources that don't have any direct
> >>> provenance - all the provenance is associated with versions or other
> >>> things that are IVPsOf the resource). I'm pointing out that each
> >>> version is a valid web resource as well (could be given its own URI)
> >>> so we don't have to treat it as a different class of thing, and that
> >>> just because we don't have direct provenance for a resource doesn't
> >>> mean it isn't a valid pil:entity.
> >>>
> >>> With the IVPof relation, we still have the mechanism to relate the
> >>> version resources with the living webpage resource, so we don't lose
> >>> any expressivity from what's in the PAQ doc. I think it just shifts
> >>> the discussion from targets as a separate type to PIL describing the
> >>> provenance of resources and having the capability to capture the
> >>> situation where some/all of the known provenance is associated with
> >>> specific version resources or other types of resources that
> > partially
> >>> characterize the resource.
> >>>
> >>>   Jim
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Paul Groth [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:01 PM
> >>>> To: Myers, Jim
> >>>> Cc: Khalid Belhajjame; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.html
> >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> >>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> >>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>> Knowledge Representation&  Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence
> >>>> Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
> >> --
> >> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> >> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> >> Assistant Professor
> >> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence
> > Section
> >> Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
> >
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 15:16:13 UTC