- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:11:18 +0100
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4DF0B866.6040107@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 09/06/2011 12:41, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Khalid, > so, according to your first definition, a "derivation" between to > IVPTs (iv1 and iv2) would always mean > that the former has a "use" relationship between iv1 and the process > execution that generated iv2 ? No, what I mean, is that we know that the process execution has used the content of iv1 to generate iv2, we didn't infer such a relationship just form the signature of the process. Thanks, khalid > > I think that it may be an incorrect assertion in some cases, because I > could use iv1 to compare something in a process > execution and generate iv2 as result, but it would not necessarily > mean that iv2 has been derived from iv1. > > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2011/6/9 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk > <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>> > > > Hi, > > > >Agreed that time ordering is a necessary property but it is not > sufficient. Can we try to give some intuition of what Derivation > consists of, beyond time ordering, without being controversial? > >That's what I was trying to do by suggesting information flow (or > alternatively transformation). > > One possible approach would be to identify possible derivations > based on the kinds of dependencies that exists in workflows (or > processes). Typically, there are two kinds: > > - Data-based derivation: an IVPT iv2 is derived from another IVPT > iv1, if the process execution that generated iv2 did so using (the > content of) iv1. > > - Control-based derivation: an IVPT iv2 is derived from another > IVPT iv1 if the decision of generating iv2 was made based on iv1. > > Thanks, khalid > > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 9 Jun 2011, at 07:38, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org > <mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> wrote: > > One might just delete the word "causal"? The real essence > is captured by "needs to have existed" IMO. > > #g > -- > > Luc Moreau wrote: > > Hi Graham, > Thanks for the quote ;-) > Paulo, during the life of the Incubator, repeatedly > criticized the notion of "causal relationship". > In what way is this causal? It's a bit like using the > term "influence" discussed earlier. > Regards, > Luc > On 08/06/11 18:47, Graham Klyne wrote: > > 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><mailto: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><mailto: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> > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 12:12:21 UTC