--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html Mon Sep 19 07:37:09 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html Mon Sep 19 09:02:12 2011 +0100
@@ -121,15 +121,12 @@
This document defines PROV-DM, a data model for provenance, and
PROV-ASN, an abstract syntax, which allows
serializations of PROV-DM instances to be created in a technology independent manner,
-facilitates its mapping to concrete syntax, and is used as the basis for a
+which facilitates its mapping to concrete syntax, and which is used as the basis for a
formal semantics.
</p>
<div class='resolved'>The name of the data model still has to be decided by the WG. Current placeholder name is PIDM. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/31">ISSUE-31</a></div>
-<p>
-This is a document for internal discussion, which will ultimately
-evolve in the first Public Working Draft of the Conceptual Model.</p>
</section>
<section>
@@ -163,25 +160,34 @@
<p>When we talk about things in the world in natural language and even when we assign identifiers, we are often imprecise in ways that make it difficult to clearly and unambiguously report provenance: a resource with a URL may be understood as referring to a report available at that URL, the version of the report available there today, the report independent of where it is hosted over time, etc.</p>
-<div class='note'>This is the single most important issue IMO: we hit readers with this "characterised thing" which is unexpected. We need to be absolutely clear about it...
+<!--
+<div class='paolo'>This is the single most important issue IMO: we hit readers with this "characterised thing" which is unexpected. We need to be absolutely clear about it...
<br/>ok, so it seems that characterized thing is introduced to deal with (1) imprecision, (2) disagreement amongst different "observers" of the same data-related events. I don't think this is about "disambiguation". It's about accommmodating different perspectives on the what is the same abstract "thing". This interpretation fits with the example: "different users may take different perspective..."</div>
-
-
-<p>Hence, to disambiguate things and their situation in the world as perceived by us, we introduce the concept <dfn id="concept-characterized-thing">characterized thing</dfn>, which refers to a thing and its situation in the world, as characterized by someone.</p>
+-->
+
+<p>Hence, to accommodate different perspectives on things and their situation in the world as perceived by us, we introduce the concept of <dfn id="concept-characterized-thing">characterized thing</dfn>, which refers to a thing and its situation in the world, as characterized by someone. A characterized thing <em>fixes some aspects</em> of a thing and its situation in the world, so that it becomes possible to express its provenance, and what causes these specific aspects to be as such. An alternative characterized thing may fix other aspects, and its provenance may be entirely different.</p>
<div class="xmpl">
-Different users may take different perspective about a resource with a URL, which are referred to as
-three different characterized things:
+Different users may take different perspectives about a resource with
+a URL. These perspectives in this conceptualization of the world are
+referred to as characterized things. Three such characterized things may be
+expressed:
<ul>
-<li>a report available at URL, </li>
-<li>the version of the report available there today, </li>
-<li>the report independent of where it is hosted over time.</li></ul></div>
-
-
-<div class='note'>can we follow through from the example. thare three perspectives, possibly by just one observer or multiple ones. but <strong>why is it so important for reporting provenance</strong> that this distinction is made? I feel we need to connect this approach to provenance recording strongly and right away</div>
-
-
-<p>We do not assume that any characterization is more important than any other, and in fact, it is possible to describe the processing that occurred for the report to be commissioned, for individual versions to be created, for those versions to be published at the given URL, etc., each via a different characterized thing that unambiguously characterizes the report appropriately.</p>
+<li>a report available at URL: fixes the nature of the thing, i.e. a document, and its location; </li>
+<li>the version of the report available there today: fixes its version number, contents, and its date;</li>
+<li>the report independent of where it is hosted over time: fixes the nature of the thing as a concepual artifact.</li></ul>
+The provenance of these three characterized things will differ, and may be along the follow lines:
+<ul>
+<li>the provenance of a report available at URL may include: the act of publishing it and making it available at a given location, possibly under some license and access control;</li>
+<li>the provenance of the version of the report available there today may include: the authorship of the specific content, and reference to imported content;</li>
+<li>the provenance of the report independent of where it is hosted over time may include: the motivation for writing the report, the overall methodology for producing it, and the broad team involved in it.</li>
+</div>
+
+<!--
+<div class='paolo'>can we follow through from the example. thare three perspectives, possibly by just one observer or multiple ones. but <strong>why is it so important for reporting provenance</strong> that this distinction is made? I feel we need to connect this approach to provenance recording strongly and right away</div>
+-->
+
+<p>We do not assume that any characterization is more important than any other, and in fact, it is possible to describe the processing that occurred for the report to be commissioned, for individual versions to be created, for those versions to be published at the given URL, etc., each via a different characterized thing that characterizes the report appropriately.</p>
<p>In the world, <dfn id="concept-activity">activities</dfn> involve
things in multiple ways: they consume them, they process them, they
@@ -190,7 +196,7 @@
etc.</p>
-<p>In our conceptualization of the world, punctual events, or <dfn id="concept-event">events</dfn> for short, happen in the world, which mark changes in the world, in its activities, and in its things. In this specification, it is assumed that a partial order exists between events. How practically such order is realized is beyond the scope of this specification. Possible implementations of that ordering include a single global notion of time and Lamport's style clocks.</p>
+<p>In our conceptualization of the world, punctual events, or <dfn id="concept-event">events</dfn> for short, happen in the world, which mark changes in the world, in its activities, and in its things. This specification assumes that a partial order exists between events. How practically such order is realized is beyond the scope of this specification. Possible implementations of that ordering include a single global notion of time and Lamport's style clocks.</p>
<p> In this specification, the qualifier 'identifiable' is implicit whenever a reference is made to an activity or characterized thing.</p>
</section>