- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:08:24 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Martin, That's what is expressed, more or less, with the properties. Luc On 07/25/2011 12:17 PM, martin wrote: > 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). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- 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 13:08:55 UTC