- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:03:45 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
In this model, Generation is what creates new BOBs. So, any short cut we introduce that results in a new BOB should expand into a generation. So, if you want a shortCut, such as isCreatedBy(e1,david), it implies the existence of a process execution pe, such that: isGeneratedBy(e1,pe) and isControlledBy(pe,david,creator) where creator is a distinguished role Luc On 07/25/2011 10:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Luc, > > looking at the definition of Derivation it says: > > "Derivation expresses that some characterized entity is transformed > from, created from, or affected by another characterized entity." > > I think I'm thinking of the "created from" part of the definition in > my example. I want to say explicitly that David (e0) created an > article(e1). Notationally: isCreatedFrom(e1, e0) > > I think this is compatible with the definition as it stands but not > compatible with the inference rule you propose. It would seem bizzare > to say that a process used a person in this example... > > Could you explain how that should be represented using the concepts we > have? > > Several of the shortcuts I think we need rely on making simple > statements about agents and their relationship to an entity. I thought > the best approach was to create specializations of isDerivedFrom but > maybe that's not the best approach and it would be good to understand > that better. > > Thanks, > Paul > > > > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Yes, I have no problem for agents to be source/destination of a >> derivation, but your example >> may introduce some confusion. Let me try and explain why. >> >> >> >> First, I think there is a missing "inference" in the specification. >> >> If there isDerivedFrom(e1,e0) holds, then there exists a process >> execution pe, and roles r0,r1, >> isGeneratedBy(e1,pe,r1) and use(pe,e0,r0) >> >> >> So, if I apply this to your example, >> >> isGeneratedBy(e0,pe,r1) and use(pe,David,r0) >> >> >> David may have been asserted to be an agent, or the agent nature of >> David can be inferred (as per definition >> of agent), but it's not because of its involvement in pe. It has to be >> in another process execution, right? >> >> Maybe, the example could become: >> >> isDerivedFrom(david-in-his-thirties, david-in-his-twenties). >> >> What do you think? >> Luc >> >> >> >> On 07/23/2011 04:36 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically >>> mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/42 >>> >>> Raised by: Paul Groth >>> On product: Conceptual Model >>> >>> Given that isDerivedFrom is between Bobs this by definition allows >>> it to relate agents, it would nice for informative to mention this >>> in the definition. >>> >>> For example, I would like to say that isDerivedFrom(e0, David) this >>> is fine with the current definition but might not be clear. >>> >>> Suggested resolution: >>> >>> Add the following statement: "Note, that isDerivedFrom can also >>> include agents. For example, isDerivedFrom(e0, David). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- 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 Monday, 25 July 2011 10:04:24 UTC