- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:23:03 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I agree - what is important from a provenance perspective would be the property linking something WITH a location. How that location is specified is beyond our knowledge - and we should allow any kind of 'location', not just "geo-spatial". (The filename examples contradicts this already). I see this along the same lines as the anchor for Recipe/Plan. It comes to the prime questions of provenance.. WHAT happened, WHEN did it happen, WHERE did it happen and WHO did it. We've got WHAT and WHO pretty well covered - WHEN is tentatively covered (PROV-O references time.owl which allows most WHEN expressions), but WHERE would be lost if we remove Location. I think both entities and activities MAY have a location specified. It is of course not a requirement that the location is fixed with regards to the Earth's surface, for instance a card transaction could take place on a moving train between London and Paris, or a virtual purchase takes place "on the website", and a file is located on a certain filesystem path *and* a certain disk sector *and* on a certain USB disk in someones pocket. I don't think it should either be a requirement that locations are consolable, e.g. if activity A uses entity e1 and generates e2 - all three of these could have "different" locations. So I don't think there will be any particular reasoning you can do about the location - it is still very much a useful concept that would be common to many provenance scenarios, just like agents and time. In the current PROV-O FPWD provo:hadLocation can be used either with an provo:Entity or with an provo:QualifiedInvolvement (specifying location of the use/generation/control) - but not with the actual ProcessExecution. On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 17:39, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Luc > I believe it is essential to have hooks in the model to well known an important provenance concepts. This includes location. > > Paul > > > On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:59, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> >> Dear all, >> >> Following this September message, I am proposing to close this issue >> formally. >> >> This said, location is so weakly specified in the model, that it begs >> the question "what >> does it do in the model at all". No specific data type, no specific >> property, no specific >> constraint, no specific inference. As part of the clean up, we could >> simply drop this >> concept, and it wouldn't affect inter-operability! >> >> If you have views on this, please raise them as new issues. >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> On 09/23/2011 11:50 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>> We are proposing to close this issue, pending review. >>> The latest version of the document states that: >>> >>> Location is an OPTIONAL attribute of entity expressions and process >>> execution expressions. >>> >>> Feel free to reopen it, if you feel this is not right. >>> Regards, >>> Luc >>> >>> On 06/09/2011 12:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define >>>> under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/91 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>> >>>> We have received little input and there has been barely any >>>> discussion on location. >>>> The current text is essentially copied from the wiki and is not >>>> aligned with the rest of the model. >>>> >>>> So, can entities have location? If so, should location appear as an >>>> attribute of an entity? >>>> So, should PIDM define some core attributes? or should this be left >>>> to a generic profile? >>>> >>>> What about process executions? PIDM does not have "attribute" for >>>> PEs. So, do we need to define a relation hasLocation? >>>> >>>> Is location unique for an entity/pe? >>>> >>>> Can people who have interest in location for provenance provide us >>>> with some guidance, so that we can write something sensible for the >>>> FPWD. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 09:23:57 UTC