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: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:26:05 +0000
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7405FD38-20F3-4A7B-BE8A-733EDCEC58F1@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi graham,
Can you make a concrete suggestion?

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 27 Sep 2012, at 16:27, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> I find this revision of Stephan's phrasing to be confusing, even contradictory.  "a primary source is a derivation" seems a bit oxymoronic to me.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> 
> On 25/09/2012 17:57, Luc Moreau 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:
>>>> 
>>>> Aprimary 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
>>>> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:26:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:26:45 GMT