[foaf-protocols] Fwd: W3C Provenance Incubator Group Final Report
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 05:16:53 CET 2010
On 15 December 2010 05:05, peter williams <home_pw at msn.com> wrote:
> So here is what I liked about the report: It was non-technology centric.
> It also seemed to imply that several web-centric techniques (DOM trees,
> nodesets, etc) could be improved upon so as to facilitate the processing and
> logics being contemplated.
> Lots of disciplines would be addressed if practice methods were to result
> (and those methods are not only related to web engineering, or social
> networking). Long term study topics found typically in law and social
> studies were nicely captured; covering attribution theory, origination, the
> basis of records and recordation, to contracts and negotiations.
> I didn't like its explicit theory of trust, but I've never found trust to be
> a tractable concept. Is best left as a conversational allusion. Or, if one
> must, it's an implication of assurance theory. One can speak of
> trustworthiness, however.
We're still right at the beginning of trust. I think we can do some
trust with with WebID and FOAF over the course of 2011. Maybe
bootstrap some of the existing tool chains too.
> They seemed to have totally missed assertions, claims, and evidences - all
> the stuff upon which SAML and openid are founded. Similarly, classical
> analyses that exploits concrete data structures and domain organization
> seemed to be explicitly avoided, sacrificed on the altar of hinting at
> abstract reasoning. Policy administration/management as an instrument of
> deciding and executing logics seemed to be a non-existent topic. Overall,
> any and all practical engineering topics got short shrift. So absent was it,
> one might assume it was intentional.
RDF tripes are global scope assertions. Quads I guess, are triples
qualified with some provenance. W3C is relatively light on SAML /
OpenID experts, so we're lucky to have a few people on the list with
that experience. The WebID XG will be a good opportunity for everyone
to get up to speed, and liaise with other groups.
> But, I enjoyed it. It's a credit to W3C - an organization Im finally
> starting to understand. It seemed to do exactly what it set to do as an
> incubator report: capture an agenda, and characterize who might care enough
> about the topic to contribute.
Best way, IMHO, to understand W3C from 50,000 ft is to read through
some of Design Issues
Philosophically I think it can be summed up by saying that the Web is
a Universal space (Universal does not mean unique) designed with
tolerance in mind.
If you skim one of these a week (pick at random), I think you can only
be blessed with deep insight, a really good understanding of what The
Web is about, and how we've only just started.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Melvin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:21 PM
> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: [foaf-protocols] Fwd: W3C Provenance Incubator Group Final Report
> Possible Provenance Interchange Working Group coming up? Will they be
> interested in WebID?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Groth <pgroth at gmail.com>
> Date: 14 December 2010 22:57
> Subject: W3C Provenance Incubator Group Final Report
> To: semantic-web <semantic-web at w3.org>
> Cc: "public-lod at w3.org" <public-lod at w3.org>
> Hello All,
> I'd like to add a bit to your holiday reading by pointing you to the W3C
> Provenance Incubator Groups final report.
> Provenance XG Final Report
> The report highlights the requirements for provenance for the web and
> semantic web and organizes the current state of the art. A key part of the
> report is a roadmap for provenance on the web.
> Concretely, it recommends the formation of a Provenance Interchange Working
> Group focused on developing a *simple* common standard to interchange and
> access provenance leveraging existing provenance vocabularies and
> I would be great to hear your thoughts on this proposal.
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth at vu.nl)
> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section
> Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-protocols