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: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:41:32 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimqYjWU+mDZKjdLG8OhaaJ2QbPUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Khalid,
so, according to your first definition, a "derivation" between to IVPTs (iv1
and iv2) would always mean
that the former has a "use" relationship between iv1 and the process
execution that generated iv2 ?

I think that it may be an incorrect assertion in some cases, because I could
use iv1 to compare something in a process
execution and generate iv2 as result, but it would not necessarily mean that
iv2 has been derived from iv1.

Thanks,
Daniel

2011/6/9 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

>
> Hi,
>
>
> >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).
>
> One possible approach would be to identify possible derivations based on
> the kinds of dependencies that exists in workflows (or processes).
> Typically, there are two kinds:
>
> - Data-based derivation:  an IVPT iv2 is derived from another IVPT iv1, if
> the process execution that generated iv2 did so using (the content of) iv1.
>
> - Control-based derivation: an IVPT iv2 is derived from another IVPT iv1 if
> the decision of generating iv2 was made based on iv1.
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
>
>
>  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 11:42:10 GMT

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