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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:15:25 +0100
Message-ID: <5064C1ED.1080509@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Well, for starters, there's Stephan's original.  I wouldn't drop "relation" 
here.  Since you ask, here's my cut:

[[
A primary source relation indicates a derivation from a primary source.  I.e. 
from an entity that records direct contemporaneous experience or knowledge about 
its topic, without the revisionary perspective of hindsight.
]]

#g
--


On 27/09/2012 19:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 21:30:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:30:14 GMT