- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:45:51 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Apologies, I got lost in discussion threads. I was looking at the wrong definition. Luc On 06/29/2011 03:09 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Graham, > > I suppose your comment is not about the fact that I added 'created > from' instead of replacing 'affecting'. > > I suppose your comment is about the second part of the definition > (which I didn't think Satya was > suggesting to drop). > > "Derivation represents how stuff is transformed from, created from, or > affected by other stuff." is the high level pitch for this definition. > > However, it does not mention any of the other concepts. It's important > to relate Derivation to Thing. > That's why I think it's important to have the second part. I agree > it's technical, and may not > be in a primer. > > Luc > > > > On 06/29/2011 12:54 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Luc, >> >> I prefer Satya's simpler form. I think it tells us what we need to >> know right now. >> >> As I recall, we set out on this course of creating definitions so we >> could have some vocabulary to talk about a provenance model. I think >> making such formal definitions at this stage (if ever) is not really >> helping us to make progress. >> >> I understand that you would like a system with a level of ontological >> commitment that helps to power certain kinds of inference. But it's >> really hard to back out of such commitments once they are baked in to >> a vocabulary, but relatively easy to extend a vocabulary compatibly >> to add commitments. If a system is overcommited in ways that do not >> suit some potential users, they are forced to invent their own >> separate systems. But if it is under-committed for some purposes, it >> is still possible to build upon it. >> >> So, at this stage, I think we'd make faster progress if we focused on >> more open (less constrained) forms of definition, so we can more on >> to see how they can fit together. It's in the more holistic context >> of seeing the vocabulary terms work together that I think we can >> start to see what additional constraints may be needed. >> >> In my view, a measure of success of this group will be if it's output >> ecourages developers and publishers to make provenance available. >> Given "a little semantics goes a long way", I think that ease of >> understanding and publication should trump power of inference. We >> need developers and publishers to look at what we produce and to >> instantly think "that's easy, I can add that tomorrow". Anything that >> gets in the way of that will reduce our effectiveness as a WG. >> (Stephen Hawking, in the acknowlegements for his "A brief history of >> time", says he was advised that each equation in his book would halve >> its sales; I think we have a similar situation here concerning the >> degree of formality imposed in order to just understand the >> provenance vocabulary) >> >> #g >> -- >> >> Luc Moreau wrote: >>> Hi Satya, >>> >>> I would not replace, but add it to the definition: >>> >>> Derivation represents how stuff is transformed from, created 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. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> On 06/29/2011 02:16 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> > -- 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 United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 14:46:43 UTC