- From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:14:08 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOMwk6zUK=PO4cRXngCsmtCHivQQbUnQbn2XezqwPtTX96wRDA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Paul and Khalid, > DerivedFrom(b1,b2,t), does that means that b2 was created at t? How do we represent a time duration (t1 to t2) instead of a time instant (t) - I am assuming that "t" above refers to a time instant, given that b2 can be derived from b1 over a period of time? Best, Satya On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> 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 Tuesday, 26 July 2011 01:14:38 UTC