--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html Tue Jul 19 00:15:07 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html Wed Jul 20 12:26:24 2011 +0100
@@ -94,14 +94,7 @@
<section>
<h2>Introduction<br>
</h2>
- <p>
- The Provenance language that is being defined by this WG, with name to be determined, is an <em>assertion language</em> which allows asserters to make assertions about <em>Entities</em> and activities in the real world (as they view it) and how such entities and activities influence each other. <br>
-
-<div class="note">PM: propose to add a sentence on annotations to assertions, as follows. This WG does not prescribe the means by which assertions are made, for example on the basis of observations, or inferences, or other means. However, it should be possible for asserters to annotate any assertion with a description of the justification for that assertion, as well as additional meta-information, such as authorship of the assertion.</div>
-</p>
-
-<div class="note">Luc: For now, I would drop this sentence. We will populate this section later.</div>
-</p>
+ <p> To be written </p>
</section>
@@ -275,44 +268,36 @@
entities. Words such entity or activity should be understood with
their informal meaning.</p>
-<p>Furthermore, this specification is concerned with <em>situated
-entities</em>, that is, entities, with their state, and situation in
-the world, as perceived by their asserters. (NOTE: alternative term could be characterized entity).</p>
+<p>Furthermore, this specification is concerned with <em>characterized
+entities</em>, that is, entities and their situation in
+the world, as perceived by their asserters.</p>
-<div class="note">This def. of situated entities is not clear to me. It relies on <em>state</em> and <em>situation</em> both of which <strong>do</strong> need a def. IMO. What is it trying to replace?</div>
+<p>
+In the rest of the document, we are concerned with the representation of such entities, and their situation in the world will be represented using sets of attributes.
+</p>
-<div class="note"> Luc: the definition of old:thing referred to entity state. That's what it corresponds to. </div>
+<p>
+<div class="example">
+<b>Example</b>: a file at some point during its lifecycle, which includes multiple edits by multiple people, will be reprensented by its location in the file system, a creator, and content.
+</div>
+</p>
<p>PIL is a language by which representations of the world can be expressed using terms that are drawn from a controlled
vocabulary.
-These representations are relative to an asserter. Different asserters will normally contribute different representation, and no attempt is made to define the notion of consistency of such different sets of assertions.
+These representations are relative to an asserter. Different asserters will normally contribute different representations, and no attempt is made to define the notion of consistency of such different sets of assertions. The lanaguage provides the means to associate attribution to assertions.
</p>
-<div class="note">I have rephrased your sentence above. Both this version and yours still beg the question, of how one can distinguish amongst assertions made by different asserters. This may eventually boil down to some named graph language construct in the implementation, but for the time being the ability to associate an attribution to each assertion is crucial. I would make this non-optional (<code>must</code>).</div>
-
-
-<div class="note">I don't think we want the provenance of provenance directly attached to assertions. That's what provenance containers and/or account are for. That's where attribution should/must be inserted.</div>
-
-<p>All assertions in PIL are interpreted as a record of something that has happened.</p>
-
-<div class="note">this sounds exactly like an <strong>event</strong>. Can we just use the term?</div>
-
-
-<div class="note">Sorry, don't understand, can you write the sentence? I would possibly like to use word event for generation/use/start/end.</div>
+<p>All assertions in PIL SHOULD be interpreted as a record of what has happened, as opposed to what may or will happen.</p>
<p>
This specification does not prescribe the means by which assertions are made, for example on the basis of observations, inferences, or any other means.
</p>
-<div class="note">I find this a bit too informal. I have proposed a rephrasing above</div>.
-
-<div class="note">Updated</div>.
-
</section>
@@ -322,44 +307,33 @@
<h2>Provenance Data Model</h2>
-<em>For each construct, I tried to follow the template: short
-definition/data structure components/properties/inference. </em>
<section>
<h3>BOB</h3>
-<p>A <dfn id="dfn-bob" title="BOB">BOB</dfn> represents an identifiable situated entity.</p>
+<p>A <dfn id="dfn-bob" title="BOB">BOB</dfn> represents an identifiable characterized entity.</p>
<p>A BOB assertion
- is about a situated entity, whose state and situation in the world are variant;
- a BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant.
- It includes a set of characteristics, predicate-value pairs, which hold about the situated entity;
+ is about a characterized entity, whose situation in the world is variant.
+ A BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant, in the sense that
+some of the attributes are assigned a value as part of that assertion.
</p>
-<div class="note">"whose state and in the world" is that what you wanted to say?</div>
-
-
-<div class="note">"whose state and SITUATION in the world"</div>
-
-<div class="note">PLEASE define (a) variant, (b) invariant. This really trips me up as a reader. I think we have agreed that variance/invariance is </em>relative</em> to a scope (time interval, interval between two events?. In any case, these terms must be defined.</div>
-
-<div class="note">There was strong support for the above at F2F. Invariance is about an assertion ... our assertions are not mutable. Variant ... meaning, which changes, does it need definition?</div>
-
<p>A BOB assertion:
<ul>
-<li> MAY contain an identity;</li>
-<li> contains a set of characteristics, predicate-value pairs.</li>
+<li> MAY contain an identifier;</li>
+<li> contains a set of attribute-value pairs.</li>
</ul>
-<p>A situated entity MUST exist instantaneously or for a continuous time interval. If a BOB's characteristics hold over multiple time intervals, then we are dealing with multiple situated entities, each with their respective identity.</p>
+<p>A BOB assertion MUST describe a characterized entity over a continuous time interval in the world (which may collapse into a single instant).
+Characterizing an entity over multiple time intervals requires multiple BOB assertions, each with its own identifier. Some attributes may retain their values across multiple assertions.</p>
-<p>Identity in a BOB assertion is OPTIONAL to allow for a so far unidentified (though still identifiable!) entities.<p>
+<p>The identifier in a BOB assertion is OPTIONAL to allow for other means of identifying entities, possibly implicitly.<p>
-<p>There is no assumption that the set of characteristics is complete,
-that the characteristics are independent/orthogonal of each other, or
-that the characteristics hold for a continuous time interval.</p>
+<p>There is no assumption that the set of attributes is complete and
+that the attributes are independent/orthogonal of each other.</p>
@@ -401,7 +375,7 @@
-<p><dfn id="dfn-Generation">Generation</dfn> represents the creation of a new situated entity by an activity. This situated entity did not exist before creation.</p>
+<p><dfn id="dfn-Generation">Generation</dfn> represents the creation of a new characterized entity by an activity. This characterized entity did not exist before creation.</p>
<div class="note">I think this needs to be qualified: "according to the asserter that makes a generation assertion..."</div>
@@ -413,14 +387,14 @@
<p>A Generation assertion:
<ul>
<li> refers to a process execution;
-<li> refers to a BOB, which represents the situated entity that is consumed;
+<li> refers to a BOB, which represents the characterized entity that is consumed;
<div class="note">Consumed?? </div>
<li> contains a role, distinguishing this generation from all other generations by the same process execution;
<div class="note"> role? bullet item above not clear at all to me. All of a sudden we have multiple possible generations by the same process? this is going to be confusing.</div>
<div class="note"> sentence was wrong. </div>
-<li> MAY contain a "generation time", the time at which the situated entity was consumed.</p>
+<li> MAY contain a "generation time", the time at which the characterized entity was consumed.</p>
</ul>
</p>
@@ -447,15 +421,15 @@
<section id="concept-Use">
<h3>Use</h3>
-<p><dfn id="dfn-Use">Use</dfn> represents the consumption of a situated entity by an activity.</p>
+<p><dfn id="dfn-Use">Use</dfn> represents the consumption of a characterized entity by an activity.</p>
<p>A Use assertion:
<ul>
<li> contains a process execution;
-<li> contains a BOB, representing the situated entity that is used;
+<li> contains a BOB, representing the characterized entity that is used;
<li> contains a role, distinguishing all possible uses of a same BOB by a same process execution;
-<li> MAY contain a "use time", the time at which the situated entity was used.</p>
+<li> MAY contain a "use time", the time at which the characterized entity was used.</p>
</ul>
</p>
@@ -483,12 +457,12 @@
<section id="concept-Derivation">
<h3>Derivation</h3>
-<p><dfn id="dfn-Derivation">Derivation</dfn> expresses that some situated entity is transformed from, created from, or affected by another situated entity. </p>
+<p><dfn id="dfn-Derivation">Derivation</dfn> expresses that some characterized entity is transformed from, created from, or affected by another characterized entity. </p>
<p>A Derivation assertion:
<ul>
-<li> contains a BOB, denoting the generated situated entity;
-<li> contains a BOB, denoting the used situated entity.
+<li> contains a BOB, denoting the generated characterized entity;
+<li> contains a BOB, denoting the used characterized entity.
</ul>
</p>
@@ -501,8 +475,8 @@
<p>Given an assertion <b>Derived(B,A)</b>, one can infer that the use
-of situated entity denoted by <b>A</b> precedes the generation of
-the situated entity denoted by <b>B</b>.
+of characterized entity denoted by <b>A</b> precedes the generation of
+the characterized entity denoted by <b>B</b>.
</section>
@@ -511,11 +485,11 @@
-<p>An <dfn id="dfn-Agent">agent</dfn> is a situated entity capable of
+<p>An <dfn id="dfn-Agent">agent</dfn> is a characterized entity capable of
activity.</p>
-<p>A situated entity can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred to be
+<p>A characterized entity can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred to be
an agent by involvement in a process execution. </p>
</section>
@@ -525,7 +499,7 @@
<h3>IVP of</h3>
-<p><dfn id="dfn-IVPof">IVP of</dfn> represents a relationship between two situated entities that are the same entity over some continuous time interval.</p>
+<p><dfn id="dfn-IVPof">IVP of</dfn> represents a relationship between two characterized entities that are the same entity over some continuous time interval.</p>
<p>An IVP assertion is denoted <b>IVPof(B,A)</b>, where A and B are two BOBs.
@@ -624,7 +598,7 @@
<dfn id="ControlOrdering">Control ordering</dfn> means that the end of
a process execution precedes the start of another process execution,
by a same agent.
-<dfn id="InformationOrdering">Information flow</dfn> means that a situated entity was generated by a process execution before it was used by another process execution.
+<dfn id="InformationOrdering">Information flow</dfn> means that a characterized entity was generated by a process execution before it was used by another process execution.
</p>
<p>An assertion isScheduledAfter:
@@ -645,7 +619,7 @@
<section id="concept-Revision">
<h3>Revision</h3>
-<p> <dfn id="dfn-Revision">Revision</dfn> represents the creation of a situated entity considered to be a variant of another. </p>
+<p> <dfn id="dfn-Revision">Revision</dfn> represents the creation of a characterized entity considered to be a variant of another. </p>
<p>An assertion isRevisionOf:
<ul>
@@ -659,7 +633,7 @@
<p>
From an assertion <b>isRevisionOf(new,old,ag)</b>, one can infer that:
<ul>
-<li> The situated entity denoted by <b>new</b> is derived from the situated entity denoted by <b>old</b>
+<li> The characterized entity denoted by <b>new</b> is derived from the characterized entity denoted by <b>old</b>
<li> There exists a BOB <b>X</b>, such that:
<ul>
<li> <b>new</b> isIVP of <b>X</b>;
@@ -711,6 +685,10 @@
<section id="concept-ProvenanceContainer">
<h3>Provenance Container</h3>
+
+<div class="note"> It should be possible for asserters to annotate the container with a description of the justification for the assertions it contains, as well as additional meta-information, such as authorship of the assertions.</div>
+</p>
+
</section>
<section id="concept-ViewsOrAccount">