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

Re: Simplicity

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:45:51 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7f12687769e711e591bd6f744e5e5cf6n5SFjw08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E0B3A9F.5000705@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 GMT

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