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

Re: definition of derivation?

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:16:31 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikvq6kg_YNDuguCPEmdtSVDG4W1YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I broadly agree with Luc and Simon's definition, except I would replace *
affected* with *created from*, since a thing X may be affected by thing Y,
but X may not be derived from Y. For example, cold temperature affects plant
X, but plant X is not derived from cold temperature.

Modified definition: "Derivation represents how stuff is transformed from or
created from other stuff."

Also, would like to point to the both the "derived from" and "transformation
of" properties defined by the OBO Foundry Relation ontology [1], which is
widely used in biomedical ontologies.
Thanks.

Best,
Satya

[1] http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> I prefer Simon's formulation.  A concern I had with the previous form was
> its dependence on a temporal element.  That temporal dependence may be a
> consequence, but I don't think it should be part of the definition.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
>
> Simon Miles wrote:
>
>> Paul, Luc,
>>
>> I'm OK with the definition, but I think it could be simplified and
>> clarified a little, and suggest:
>>
>> Derivation represents how stuff is transformed from or affected by
>> other stuff. A thing B is derived from a thing A if the values of some
>> invariant properties of B are at least partially determined by the
>> values of some invariant properties of A.
>>
>> The reasons for this proposed revision:
>>
>> 1. "A was used (and therefore created) before B was created" means the
>> definition of "derivation" is based on those for "use" and
>> "generation". This property seems, in practice, necessitated by B
>> having been determined by A anyway.
>>
>> 2. The first sentence mixes plural with singular, so it is unclear how
>> many things a derivation relates.
>>
>> 3. The "in the real world" caveat seems unnecessary if "things" are
>> defined to be explicitly about the real world. Moreover, if we decide
>> to revise the definition of "thing" to cover more than the real world,
>> then derivation would also have to be revised.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 20 June 2011 21:07, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> What do people think of Luc's definition of derivation:
>>>
>>> - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov
>>> /wiki/ConceptDerivation#**Definition_by_Luc_.28in_terms_**
>>> of_properties.29
>>> Things represent stuff in the real-world.
>>>
>>> Definition of Derivation. A derivation represents how stuffs are
>>> transformed or affect each other in the real world.
>>>
>>> A thing B is derived from a thing A if:
>>>
>>> A was used (and therefore created) before B was created
>>> The values of some invariant properties of B are partially determined by
>>> the values of some invariant properties of A
>>>
>>> James you seemed to suggest another way to define derivation or not
>>> define it all? Can you be more specific?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>>> __________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/**email<http://www.messagelabs.com/email>
>>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>>> __________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 01:17:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:32 GMT