Re: PROV-ISSUE-15 (define-views-or-account): Definition for Concept 'Views or accounts' [Provenance Terminology]

Hi Simon,

I agree with you. I think the key thing is to realize that provenance is 
asserted by one or more entities (sources?) and thus is an account of 
the state of the world.

I don't think we should be forced to identify these identies. However, 
each account should have an identifier.

Paul

Simon Miles wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Answers are interleaved.
>
>> I was wondering why an account must be from one source.
>
> Just because it seemed most intuitive, but maybe an account could have
> multiple sources, as long as we are clear what that would mean.
>
> If we meant multiple actors may agree with an account and wouldn't
> describe what occurred any differently from the same perspective, then
> that's true but there would still be one actor which originally
> provided the account.
>
> If we meant that multiple actors may be "co-authors" of an account,
> that would be more reasonable. I guess I was considering such a group
> as a single source, but I agree this may not be the clearest way to
> define things. Of course, an account can have a its own provenance
> where it can be specified in detail who contributed what and how.
>
>> I think a source maybe an annotation on an account.
>
> That's an issue separate from concept definition, surely. "Annotation"
> applies to some data (a serialised account), and "annotating with a
> source" requires having an identifier for the source, which my
> definition of account does not require.
>
>> I think a more general definition would be.
>> - An account is a record of something that has occurred from a
>> particular perspective.
>
> I'm fine with that definition. It still feels like the definition
> implies rather than makes explicit something significant, i.e. that
> the account comes from one or a group of sources, but I don't have a
> strong argument why it needs to be explicit.
>
>> I agree with the notion that every description of some occurrence must
>> be part of an account but I don't think that needs to be identified.
>
> Again, I think this goes beyond the concept definition to design
> decisions, but maybe we can't separate the two. It depends what you
> mean by "identified" as to whether I agree with you :-).
>
> If you mean that there doesn't need to be any metadata about the
> account(s) each occurrence is referred to in, such as the source of
> the account, then I agree it may be too much to require.
>
> But if you mean that we may not be able to distinguish whether two
> assertions about what has occurred are from the same source and
> perspective or not (i.e. same accounts or not), then I'm not convinced
> - it seems to go against the purpose of providing provenance to aid
> trust and interpretation to lose such distinctions.
>
> Further, if you provide no identifier for an account, then don't you
> lose (or make much harder) the possibility of providing metadata about
> it in the future? So, I would argue that all occurrences, assertions,
> or whatever parts comprise provenance information, should be part of
> at least one account, and that those accounts should be given
> identifiers, even if no other information about the account is
> provided.
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
>> thoughts?
>> Paul
>>
>> Simon Miles wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> My proposed starting definition:
>>>    - An account is a record of something that has occurred provided by
>>> one source and taking one perspective in describing what occurred.
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>    - I would expect the provenance of a resource (or whatever provenance
>>> is of) to comprise a set of accounts or parts of accounts, as all the
>>> information within that provenance has to come from somewhere and take
>>> some perspective.
>>>    - The definition does not require that the source be identified -
>>> whether we require it to be seems a design decision not part of
>>> concept definition.
>>>    - The same occurrence (e.g. a "resource" or "process execution")
>>> could be referred to in multiple accounts. I would expect it to be
>>> decision of the account sources whether they are referring to the same
>>> thing in their assertions.
>>>    - "Perspective" could be rephrased as something more concrete. An
>>> example of perspective (from OPM) is the granularity of description:
>>> whether what has occurred is described coarsely or in detail. However,
>>> there may be other useful distinctions in perspective.
>>>    - Every occurrence included in some provenance data would be part of
>>> at least one account (if it had not been documented, it could not be
>>> included). This may be a distinction from OPM, where I believe
>>> entities can be included in provenance without being in an account.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On 20 May 2011 08:38, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>    wrote:
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-15 (define-views-or-account): Definition for Concept 'Views or accounts'   [Provenance Terminology]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/15
>>>>
>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>> On product: Provenance Terminology
>>>>
>>>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Views or accounts' as a core concept of the provenance interchange language to be standardized (see http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter).
>>>>
>>>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>>> How do we define the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>>> Where does concept 'Views or accounts' appear in ProvenanceExample?
>>>> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Views or accounts'?
>>>>
>>>> Wiki page:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptViewsOrAccounts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 15:24:56 UTC