--- a/mention/prov-mention.html Mon Nov 26 11:36:15 2012 +0000
+++ b/mention/prov-mention.html Mon Nov 26 12:11:19 2012 +0000
@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-constraints-20121211/">PROV-CONSTRAINTS</a> (Candidate Recommendation), a set of constraints applying to the PROV data model [[!PROV-CONSTRAINTS]];</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-aq-20120619/">PROV-AQ</a> (To be published as Note), the mechanisms for accessing and querying provenance [[PROV-AQ]]; </li>
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-xml-20121211/">PROV-XML</a> (To be published as Note), an XML schema for the PROV data model [[PROV-XML]];</li>
-<li> Prov-mention (this document).</li>
+<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-link-20121211/">PROV-LINK</a> (To be published as Note), introduces a mechanism to link across bundles (this document).</li>
</ul>
<h4>How to read the PROV Family of Documentation</h4>
@@ -844,49 +844,16 @@
<p>The provenance of information is crucial in deciding whether information is to be trusted, how it should be integrated with other diverse information sources, and how to give credit to its originators when reusing it. To support this, provenance should be trusted, and therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect of an information infrastructure such as the Web. To this end, PROV introduces the concept of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-dm-20121211/#concept-bundle">Bundle</a>: defined as a set of provenance descriptions, it is a mechanism by which provenance of provenance can be expressed (see also <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-o-20121211/#Bundle">Bundle</a> [[!PROV-O]] and <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-xml-20121211/#term-Bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-XML]]). With bundles, blobs of provenance descriptions can be given names and can itself be regarded as entities, whose provenance can be described using PROV. </p>
-<p>In a distributed environment, it is common to encounter applications that involve multiple parties, where some party creates data and its provenance, whereas another party consumes the data and its provenance.
-
-<verbatim>
-the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization. ←
-… without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle. ←
-
-Timothy Lebo: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system. ←
-
- a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance. ←
-… it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using. ←
-
-… as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it. ←
-
-Curt Tilmes: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle. ←
-
-Hook Hua: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking. ←
-
+<p>In a distributed environment, it is common to encounter applications that involve multiple parties: it is a common situation that some party creates some data and its provenance, whereas another party consumes the data and its provenance. In such a situation, the consumer, when it in turn generates provenance, often wants to augment the descriptions of entities generated by another producer. For the consumer, it is not suitable to repeat the provenance created by the producer, and augment it according to their need. Instead, a consumer wants to <em>refer</em> to the description as created by the producer <em>in situ</em>, i.e. in its bundle, and <em>specialize it</em>, allowing the consumer to add their own view on this entity.</p>
-Graham Klyne: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this. ←
-
-Curt Tilmes: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis. ←
-
-
-Hook Hua: it is very important. ←
-
-… each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities. ←
+<p>This document introduces a new concept <a>Mention</a> allowing an entity to be described as the specialization of another entity, itself described in another bundle. The document provides a conceptual definition <a>Mention</a>, but also the corresponding ontological, schema, and notational definitions, for the various representations of PROV. It also includes constraints that apply to this construct specifically. By defining <a>Mention</a> conceptually, and in the PROV representations will promote inter-operability.</p>
-… interop is key here. ←
-
-Curt Tilmes: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles. ←
-
-… each needs a way to reference across those bundles. ←
-
-… seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point. ←
-
-</verbatim>
-
+<div class="note">The concept <a>Mention</a> is experimental, and for this reason was defined as part of the PROV recommendation-track documents. The Provenance Working Group is seeking feedback from the community on its usefulness in practical scenarios.
+</div>
</section>
- <section id="mention-dm">
- <h2>Data Model Definition</h2>
-
-
+<section id="mention-dm">
+<h2>Data Model Definition</h2>
@@ -900,7 +867,7 @@
<p>
<a href="#figure-component5">Figure 1</a> depicts
-the relation SpecializationOf (<a>specialization</a>).
+the relation MentionOf (<a>mention</a>).
</p>
@@ -1306,7 +1273,7 @@
<h2>Acknowledgements</h2>
<p>
-This document has been produced by the PROV Working Group, and its contents reflect extensive discussion within the Working Group as a whole. The editors extend special thanks to Sandro Hawke (W3C/MIT), Ivan Herman (W3C/ERCIM), Tom Baker for their thorough reviews.
+This document has been produced by the PROV Working Group, and its contents reflect extensive discussion within the Working Group as a whole. The editors extend special thanks to Ivan Herman and Sandro Hawke (W3C/MIT).
</p>
<p>