- From: martin <martin@ics.forth.gr>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:17:19 +0300
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear All, I may miss here something, but if derivation is nothing else than the closure of all used things, I do not see any point in calling it "derivation", but right away "use". This definition extends the intuition of derivation beyond recognition. For instance, it would include all raw materials. Also, I do not understand how a "characterized entity" could "affect" another, if it is not an agent. I'd prefer a definition of derivation based on a notion that relevant features of a source are transferred to the "derivative". This makes also sense for IPR. Best, Martin On 7/25/2011 12:54 PM, 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). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | | Email: martin@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory | Institute of Computer Science | Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 11:18:05 UTC