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

RE: definition of derivation?

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:57:11 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF2053A39AD@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

I think your example is one where we/I would argue that the plant
participates in heating (and we could have cold-plant and warm-plant
IVPs if we wanted to record the temperature before and after). Is that
the general case you have in mind for affect? Versus a case like cake
baking where a pan and spoon affect the cake but we wouldn't say the
cake is derived from a spoon. The difference is that cake baking does
generate the cake.


In either of these cases, is there any use case where one would have the
basic used/generated links (or participates in the plant-style example)
and not be able to infer derivation?




From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satya Sahoo
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: Simon Miles; Provenance Working Group WG
Subject: Re: definition of derivation?


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 theOBO Foundry Relation
ontology [1], which is widely used in biomedical ontologies.








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.


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.


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
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?


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 13:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:05 UTC