- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:07:03 +0100
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I think it's a good way of phrasing it.
I appreciate that my comment was a bit pedantic, but it's important not
to mix these concepts.
Luc
On 08/23/2011 04:52 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> OK - Does this mean that rather than resources being entities we just need to say resources can be asserted to be entities? (After which the resource URI is a valid identifier for that entity in subsequent pil statements?)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:30 AM
>> To: Myers, Jim
>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Assertions in PIDM do not have an identity, it's characterized things/activies
>> that have to be identifiable.
>> (Obviously, we could introduce assertion identity if it is required.)
>>
>> So, coming to your question, I complete the example in the Abstract syntax
>> notation:
>>
>>
>> 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"])
>>
>> processExecution(pe0,download)
>> uses(downloadPE, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, r1)
>> isGeneratedBy(localfileURI, pe0, r2)
>>
>>
>> Would pil let me sayhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37
>> hasAuthor (dc:creator?) "Jim Myers" ?
>>
>>
>> I don't know, given that this is not a PIL predicate. But yes, that
>> looks reasonable.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2011 03:48 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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 16:07:36 UTC