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 Friday, 12 August 2011 06:13:14 UTC