- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:48:24 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Ok thanks, I think I get it now. khalid On 24/07/2011 21:12, Paul Groth wrote: > Something like that...I need to look at the exact definition of derived from. > > Paul > > On Jul 24, 2011, at 20:43, Khalid Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > >> >> Ok, I must admit I didn't understand that. Just to clarify, when one say >> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t), does that means that b2 was created at t? >> >> Thanks, khalid >> >> >> On 24/07/2011 18:33, Paul Groth wrote: >>> Hi Khalid, >>> >>> I don't think this is what I mean. >>> >>> It's not when the assertion was made. It's when the derivation occurred according to the asserter. >>> >>> Just as with use and generation. It's the time at which these events occur according to the asserter. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2011, at 18:08, Khalid Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 24/07/2011 15:35, Myers, Jim wrote: >>>>> (The time is not the interval over which the derivation relation is >>>>> valid - in the same way the time on USED is not the time when that >>>>> relation is valid (it would be if the semantics were 'in use during >>>>> interval t') - both just describe the time when an enduring relationship >>>>> was first formed.) >>>> Agreed, that what I was hinting to in my last response email to Paul. >>>> The time I was referring to in my email was the validity, but Paul, I >>>> think, was talking about the time where the derivation was formed. >>>> >>>> Which leads me to a new proposal. Instead of having the time as argument >>>> to USE, GENERATION and derivation, e.g., isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t). Would >>>> it be sensible to assume, instead, that every assertion may be >>>> associated with a time in which it was formed? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Khalid >>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >>>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:27 AM >>>>>> To: Paul Groth >>>>>> Cc: Provenance Working Group WG; Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>> Tracker >>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have >>>>>> associated time [Conceptual Model] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/07/2011 13:13, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Khalid >>>>>>> But why can't I say that a newspaper article is derived from a >>>>> picture at a >>>>>> particular time? Or for that matter over a period of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The way I see it, is that there will be a bob representing the >>>>> newspaper article >>>>>> and another representing the picture. If there is evidence that the >>>>> latter is >>>>>> derived from the former, then the derivation will always hold between >>>>> those >>>>>> two bobs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, that I am writing this email, I am wondering whether we are >>>>> referring to >>>>>> the same notion of time. In your statement, isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t), I >>>>> think you >>>>>> mean t is used to refers to the time in which the derivation assertion >>>>> was >>>>>> made, whereas what I was thinking of is the (period of) time in which >>>>> the >>>>>> derivation holds. Is that the case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>>>> The time is when the derivation occurred not when it applies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2011, at 13:06, Khalid >>>>>> Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that "Use" and "Generation" should be associated with time. >>>>>>>> However, I don't think we should associate time to derivation. >>>>>>>> I would argue that isDerivedFrom(b1,b2) holds all time. Although b1 >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> b2 may no longer exist, isDerivedFrom(b1,b2) is still valid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 23/07/2011 16:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have >>>>> associated >>>>>>>>> time [Conceptual Model] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raised by: Paul Groth >>>>>>>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other relationships have time associated with them (e.g. use, >>>>>>>>> generation, control) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no optional time associated with derivation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suggested resolution is to add the following to the definition of >>>>>> isDerivedFrom: >>>>>>>>> - May contain a "derived from time" t, the time or time intervals >>>>>>>>> when b1 was derived from b2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Example: >>>>>>>>> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2, t) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 22:49:19 UTC