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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for Concept 'Derivation' [Provenance Terminology]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:05:07 +0000
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|6ae7363a8f6aaa1dba82c1215989bb70n5885Z08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|935F2B84-EAD3-48C6-8165-5159386CDFA1@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Agreed that time ordering is a necessary property but it is not sufficient. Can we try to give some intuition of what Derivation consists of, beyond time ordering, without being controversial?
That's what I was trying to do by suggesting information flow (or alternatively transformation).

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 9 Jun 2011, at 07:38, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> One might just delete the word "causal"?  The real essence is captured by "needs to have existed" IMO.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>> Thanks for the quote ;-)
>> Paulo, during the life of the Incubator, repeatedly criticized the notion of "causal relationship".
>> In what way is this causal?  It's a bit like using the term "influence" discussed earlier.
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>> On 08/06/11 18:47, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> I've added something based on OPM, which always made sense to me:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_adapted_by_Graham 
>>> 
>>> #g
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Another perspective on derivation:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_Luc
>>>> 
>>>> Luc
>>>> 
>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Paul and Daniel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:13 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Luc, all:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it really necessary to go down this road of defining influence. I have this fear that we will never bottom out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are certain concepts that need to be defined terminologically others may not. It depends on what are the core building blocks of the model are.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suppose we wouldn't want the standard model to be over-constraining, to allow for many forms of derivations (in physical, digital, conceptual contexts).
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, what are the (minimum) properties that need to be satisfied in order to qualify as a derivation?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Having identified a concept of Invariant View or Perspective on Thing (IVPT), I'd like to go back
>>>>>>> to the meaning of Derivation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Several of you indicated that Derivation expresses that one IVPT was influenced by another IVPT.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Paolo has asked what does it mean to 'influence'? It's a good question!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Will we be able to define a notion of influence that applies for all things,
>>>>>>> whether physical, digital, conceptual, or other?  Should we go down the road of
>>>>>>> modelling influence in specific domains?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 27/05/11 20:34, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Luc, all
>>>>>>>>> In the example c2 is also a derivation of d2, and from my point of view,
>>>>>>>>> c2 could also be seen as a derivation from c1, since it is the chart taken as reference
>>>>>>>>> and corected in c2...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As for your second question, I think that if we want to be able to cover
>>>>>>>>> provenance from resources, resources representations and resources state
>>>>>>>>> representation, a derivation must be able to refer to all of them.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From the existing example/scenario section on Derivation:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A derivation is a relation between two Resource State Representations that expresses that one RSR was influenced by the other RSR.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A agree that a derivation should be a relation between two like resource abstractions, and I agree with Daniel in that I am not sure we should limit it to RSR.  I believe one Resource could be derived from another Resource, and same with Resource State.  I also believe derivation covers a large spectrum of relationships - FRBR has covered some of this ground on the wide spectrum of different types of derivation so thankfully we do not have to start from scratch. Stories can be derived from other stores, editions of publications are derived from earlier editions, adaptions are derived works,  translations are derived expressions, etc.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I suggest an quick overview of FRBR's conclusions on derivations to provide direction.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I also agree with the suggestion that Version be a specialization / subtype of Derivation, as suggested in the Version section of the existing example/scenario.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2011/5/27 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Dear all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Over the last week, we debated the notion of resource
>>>>>>>>>    (PROV-ISSUE-1),
>>>>>>>>>    one of the concepts identified in the charter as core to a
>>>>>>>>>    provenance
>>>>>>>>>    data model. It would be good to discuss the notion of derivation.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Do we agree with the illustration of derivation [1]:
>>>>>>>>>    in the example, chart c1 is a derivation of data set d1.
>>>>>>>>>    Are there other interesting illustrations?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Is derivation relating resources/resource representations/resource
>>>>>>>>>    representation states?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>    Luc
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    On 05/20/2011 08:07 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for Concept
>>>>>>>>>        'Derivation' [Provenance Terminology]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/7
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>>>>>>        On product: Provenance Terminology
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept
>>>>>>>>>        'Derivation' as a core concept of the provenance interchange
>>>>>>>>>        language to be standardized (see
>>>>>>>>>        http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        What term do we adopt for the concept 'Derivation'?
>>>>>>>>>        How do we define the concept 'Derivation'?
>>>>>>>>>        Where does concept 'Derivation' appear in ProvenanceExample?
>>>>>>>>>        Which provenance query requires the concept 'Derivation'?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    --     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 <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>    United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 07:06:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT