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 <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:42:01 +0100
Message-ID: <506554C9.7090207@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
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>
On 27/09/2012 23:15, Luc Moreau wrote:
> but this definition would not be aligned with the other, since we define the
> concept as opposed to the relation in a data model.

This isn't making sense to me.  In your phrasing, you suggest that a primary 
source is a derivation.  But surely, a derivation *is* a relation?  What else 
can it be?

My trouble with your phrasing is that when you make claims about "primary 
source" you make claims about an original that pretty much by definition is not 
derivative.  I think what you are trying to describe is a *relation* between 
some entity and a primary source, which is something else.

#g
--

>
>
> On 27/09/12 22:15, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 28 September 2012 07:43:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 September 2012 07:43:57 GMT