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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:03:45 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2269432482c8590a99a7cf8fbc5939bbn6OB3m08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E2D3F81.5090306@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>



In this model, Generation is what creates new BOBs.  So, any short cut 
we introduce
that results in a new BOB should expand into a generation.



So, if you want a shortCut, such as isCreatedBy(e1,david),

   it implies the existence of a process execution pe, such that:
   isGeneratedBy(e1,pe) and isControlledBy(pe,david,creator)

where creator is a distinguished role

Luc


On 07/25/2011 10:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 10:04:24 GMT

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