- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:42:25 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 31/05/2011 12:31, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Jun, Daniel, Stephan, > > Thanks for your proposed definitions: > > I don't understand how the proposed definitions of Derivation > would work in the presence of mutable resources. > > So, to illustrate this, I consider the following variant of our example > > > - blogger (bob) generates new chart (c2) based on the data (lcp2) using > some software (tools2) with statistical assumptions (stats2) > - blogger (bob) publishes the chart (c2) under an open license (li3). > - user (u1) visualises chart (c2) > - later, blogger (bob) updates published chart (c2) rerunning (tools2) > using other statistical assumptions (stats3) > - user (u2) visualises chart the latest (c2) > > > I would argue that we have: > - a derivation from a downloaded copy of c2 to stats2 (as seen by u1) > - another derivation from another downloaded copy of c2 to stats3 (as > seen by u2) Hi Luc, > > Hence, it does not seem appropriate to relate resource c2 directly to > stats2 or stats3. Why not? In my opinion, there is nothing wrong making this statement. It is not accurate. But being inaccurate and being wrong is different, right?:) Picking apart our discussions about resource/resource state/resource representation, I think the key to achieve providing accurate provenance is to bring mutable/immutable to the concepts. I revised my definitions to: Derivation is for expressing the dependency relationship between things, that are in an immutable state and for whom we provide provenance descriptions. One thing I really like about OPM's definition of artifact is that it explicitly says that it talks about things in immutable states, and that it represents both physical and digital things. I think we should at least keep these two good things through in our definition of "resource" or whatever that we provide provenance descriptions for. The fundamental reason for this thread of discussions and the following is that we haven't agreed on: 1/ the concept of resource to work on; 2/ the type of things we will provide provenance descriptions about. I see that you are putting this in today's agenda. Look forward for a consensus today! cheers, Jun > Instead, I think we should relate the resource state representations of > c2 (the downloaded copies) > to stats2 and stats3, respectively. > > What do you think? > Cheers, > Luc > > > > > On 05/31/2011 11:56 AM, Jun Zhao wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 27/05/2011 12:04, Daniel Garijo wrote: >>> Hi Luc, all >>> In the example c2 is also a derivation of d2, and from my point of view, >>> c2 could also be seen as a derivation from c1, since it is the chart >>> taken as reference >>> and corected in c2... >>> >>> As for your second question, I think that if we want to be able to cover >>> provenance from resources, resources representations and resources state >>> representation, a derivation must be able to refer to all of them. >> >> That's why in the current wiki page defining derivation I used some >> very vague terminologies. >> >> I think derivation should cover all the cases you listed above. And we >> should start to clearly define the three above concepts in order to >> define the rest provenance terms as accurately as we can for the moment. >> >> cheers, >> >> Jun >> >>> >>> What do you think? >>> Best, >>> Daniel >>> >>> 2011/5/27 Luc >>> Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Over the last week, we debated the notion of resource (PROV-ISSUE-1), >>> one of the concepts identified in the charter as core to a provenance >>> data model. It would be good to discuss the notion of derivation. >>> >>> Do we agree with the illustration of derivation [1]: >>> in the example, chart c1 is a derivation of data set d1. >>> Are there other interesting illustrations? >>> >>> Is derivation relating resources/resource representations/resource >>> representation states? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Luc >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05/20/2011 08:07 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for Concept 'Derivation' >>> [Provenance Terminology] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/7 >>> >>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>> On product: Provenance Terminology >>> >>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Derivation' as a >>> core concept of the provenance interchange language to be >>> standardized (see http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >>> >>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Derivation'? >>> How do we define the concept 'Derivation'? >>> Where does concept 'Derivation' appear in ProvenanceExample? >>> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Derivation'? >>> >>> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>> United Kingdom >>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 11:42:48 UTC