W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:54:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2D3D68.6020703@vu.nl>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

looking at the definition of Derivation it says:

"Derivation expresses that some characterized entity is transformed 
from, created from, or affected by another characterized entity."

I think I'm thinking of the "created from" part of the definition in my 
example. I want to say explicitly that David (e0) created an 
article(e1).  Notationally: isCreatedFrom(e1, e0)

I think this is compatible with the definition as it stands but not 
compatible with the inference rule you propose. It would seem bizzare to 
say that a process used a person in this example...

Could you explain how that should be represented using the concepts we 
have?

Several of the shortcuts I think we need rely on making simple 
statements about agents and their relationship to an entity. I thought 
the best approach was to create  specializations of isDerivedFrom but 
maybe that's not the best approach and it would be good to understand 
that better.

Thanks,
Paul




Luc Moreau wrote:
> Yes, I have no problem for agents to be source/destination of a
> derivation, but your example
> may introduce some confusion.  Let me try and explain why.
>
>
>
> First, I think there is a missing "inference" in the specification.
>
> If there isDerivedFrom(e1,e0) holds, then there exists a process
> execution pe, and roles r0,r1,
>     isGeneratedBy(e1,pe,r1) and use(pe,e0,r0)
>
>
> So, if I apply this to your example,
>
>      isGeneratedBy(e0,pe,r1) and  use(pe,David,r0)
>
>
> David may have been asserted to be an agent, or the agent nature of
> David can be inferred (as per definition
> of agent), but it's not because of its involvement in pe. It has to be
> in another process execution, right?
>
> Maybe, the example could become:
>
>    isDerivedFrom(david-in-his-thirties, david-in-his-twenties).
>
> What do you think?
> Luc
>
>
>
> On 07/23/2011 04:36 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/42
>>
>> Raised by: Paul Groth
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>> Given that isDerivedFrom is between Bobs this by definition allows it to relate agents, it would nice for informative to mention this in the definition.
>>
>> For example, I would like to say that isDerivedFrom(e0, David) this is fine with the current definition but might not be clear.
>>
>> Suggested resolution:
>>
>> Add the following statement: "Note, that isDerivedFrom can also include agents. For example,  isDerivedFrom(e0, David).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 09:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT