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: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:36:32 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205286C0D@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think the challenge in defining 'types' of derivation is more easily
understood if you think instead of different types of entities that have
a single type of derivation relationship: FRBR does this with
work/expression/manifestation - a work is conceptual so things derived
from it are 'conceptually' derived by definition whereas things derived
from a physical manifestation are 'physically dervied'. Why does it help
to model one way versus the other? Because if we type the relationship,
I think we get non-intuitive results. Consider a chart created from
logical data which is modeled as being the the same as a file. The chart
was physically derived from the file as well as conceptually derived
from the data in the file(which is the same as the file - same
identifier). But the chart is also conceptually derived from the data in
a copy of the file, even it wasn't physically derived from that file,
and it was also conceptually derived (derivable?) from a copy made in
the future, so conceptually derived/derivable doesn't even have a fixed
direction in time. If I separate the logical data from the physical
file, I would have relationships that say the chart was logically
derived from data which was also/later manifested in new physical files.
Same story but no arrows going sideways and backward in time. (Have fun
and think of how to describe the conceptual and computational provenance
of data going through a CPU with speculative/look-ahead processing :-)).

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 7:46 AM
> To: James Cheney
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for Concept
> 'Derivation' [Provenance Terminology]
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> James makes a good point.
> 
> I think there is a need for a notion of derivation but there are many
ways to
> define it depending on observer.
> 
> Just as perspective got us moving forward with the resource
conversation
> maybe it can do so here?
> 
> Paul
> 
> James Cheney wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Terms like "causal", "influence", "derivation", or "needs to have
> > existed" are all a bit subjective, or at least, philosophers have
> > struggled for hundreds of years to come up with satisfying objective
> > definitions.  There is some recent work on mathematical formalisms
for
> > causal models, see Pearl's "Causality" (2000) or Woodward's "Making
> > things happen", and there is also lots of work on information flow
in
> > security, but all of this work makes some modeling assumptions about
> > what it means for information to "flow".
> >
> > I (and more recently some other DB people) have also tried to adapt
> > these ideas to provenance, but I'm not totally convinced it is the
> > right way to go: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1429v1
> >
> > I'd suggest not trying to define derivation per se but naming it as
a
> > relationship that can hold between IVPTs as judged by some
> > observer/perspective/account, whose criteria for judging this may be
> > objective (e.g. using a mathematical theory of causality),
legalistic
> > (using defeasible / argumentation) or completely subjective (I know
it
> > when I see it).
> >
> > (The wiki seems to be not responding to me at the moment, I'll add
> > this as a comment when it comes back)
> >
> > --James
> >
> >
> > On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Graham Klyne 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_adapt
> >>>> ed_by_Graham
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> #g
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Luc Moreau wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> Another perspective on derivation:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_L
> >>>>> uc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 19:37:17 GMT

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