- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:47:46 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I've added something based on OPM, which always made sense to me: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_adapted_by_Graham #g -- Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > Another perspective on derivation: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_Luc > > Luc > > On 06/08/2011 10:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi Paul and Daniel. >> >> On 06/08/2011 10:13 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> Hi Luc, all: >>> >>> Is it really necessary to go down this road of defining influence. I >>> have this fear that we will never bottom out. >> >> Agreed. >>> >>> There are certain concepts that need to be defined terminologically >>> others may not. It depends on what are the core building blocks of >>> the model are. >> >> I suppose we wouldn't want the standard model to be over-constraining, >> to allow for many forms of derivations (in physical, digital, >> conceptual contexts). >> >> So, what are the (minimum) properties that need to be satisfied in >> order to qualify as a derivation? >> >> Luc >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Having identified a concept of Invariant View or Perspective on >>>> Thing (IVPT), I'd like to go back >>>> to the meaning of Derivation. >>>> >>>> Several of you indicated that Derivation expresses that one IVPT was >>>> influenced by another IVPT. >>>> >>>> Paolo has asked what does it mean to 'influence'? It's a good question! >>>> >>>> Will we be able to define a notion of influence that applies for all >>>> things, >>>> whether physical, digital, conceptual, or other? Should we go down >>>> the road of >>>> modelling influence in specific domains? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27/05/11 20:34, Stephan Zednik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:04 AM, 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> From the existing example/scenario section on Derivation: >>>>> >>>>> A derivation is a relation between two Resource State >>>>> Representations that expresses that one RSR was influenced by the >>>>> other RSR. >>>>> >>>>> A agree that a derivation should be a relation between two like >>>>> resource abstractions, and I agree with Daniel in that I am not >>>>> sure we should limit it to RSR. I believe one Resource could be >>>>> derived from another Resource, and same with Resource State. I >>>>> also believe derivation covers a large spectrum of relationships - >>>>> FRBR has covered some of this ground on the wide spectrum of >>>>> different types of derivation so thankfully we do not have to start >>>>> from scratch. Stories can be derived from other stores, editions of >>>>> publications are derived from earlier editions, adaptions are >>>>> derived works, translations are derived expressions, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest an quick overview of FRBR's conclusions on derivations to >>>>> provide direction. >>>>> >>>>> I also agree with the suggestion that Version be a specialization / >>>>> subtype of Derivation, as suggested in the Version section of the >>>>> existing example/scenario. >>>>> >>>>> --Stephan >>>>> >>>>>> 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 Wednesday, 8 June 2011 17:51:45 UTC