W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Primary Source again (Re: PROV-ISSUE-518: Data Model Section 5.2.4 ) [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:29:27 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|eab8c9519a67dc02b3fd4e6c359b8cb0o8PCYR08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5062E717.7080804@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
All,
Here is a proposed answer to this issue. When Tim confirms he is OK, I 
will implement it.
Comments, feedback?
regards,
Luc


      ISSUE-518 (PrimarySource)

    * Original email:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0108.html
    * Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/518
    * Group Response
          o Following the author's suggestion the Working group proposes
            to revise the definition of Primary Source as follows:
                + A primary source is a derivation from an entity that
                  was produced by some agent with direct experience and
                  knowledge about the entity's conceptual topic, at the
                  time of the topic's study, without benefit of hindsight.
          o We also propose to add the following comment, inspired by
            this issue:
                + It is also important to note that a given entity might
                  be a primary source for one entity but not another. It
                  the reason why Primary Source is defined as a relation
                  as opposed to a subtype of Entity.
    * References:
    * Changes to the document:
    * Original author's acknowledgement:



On 25/09/2012 19:25, Paul Groth wrote:
> I'm fine with it.
>
> An interesting note in your response, is that we use a relation and
> not a subtype because of the "context" issue that was brought up.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> Would be nice if Paul and Tim could confirm they are fine.
>>
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2012, at 18:01, "Stephan Zednik"<zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>>  wrote:
>>
>> That reads ok to me.
>>
>> --Stephan
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Luc Moreau<l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>  wrote:
>>
>> HI Stephan,
>>
>> I would just drop "relation" (because we define the concept) and "represents":
>>
>> A primary source is a derivation from an entity that was produced by some agent with direct experience and knowledge about the entity's conceptual topic, at the time of the topic's study, without benefit of hindsight.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 09/25/2012 05:48 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> How is this?
>>
>> A primary source relation represents a derivation from an entity that was produced by some agent with direct experience and knowledge about the entity's conceptual topic, at the time of the topic's study, without benefit of hindsight.
>>
>> --Stephan
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> How do we address this issue?
>> The current definition is:
>>
>> A primary source ◊<http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#concept-primary-source>  for a topic refers to something produced by some agent with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time of the topic's study, without benefit from hindsight.
>>
>> I wonder whether the wording 'refers to' is suitable here. We don't mean 'is', but 'a derivation from'. Would this address the concern?
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2012 09:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> PROV-ISSUE-518: Data Model Section 5.2.4   [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/518
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.2.4
>>
>> ISSUE-463
>>
>> The definition of a "primary source" implies that it is an entity when in fact the term qualifies the role that a given entity plays during the creation of a new entity, not the derivation itself. This might seem to be a minor point, but it is clearly different from both revision and quotation, both of which could be used when deriving a new entity from an entity used as a primary source.
>>
>> It is also important to note that a given entity might be a primary source for one entity but not another ("primary source" is context-dependent).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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, 26 September 2012 11:30:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 September 2012 11:30:32 GMT