- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:52:49 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Khalid and all, I am not sure we need to make a distinction between data-base and control-based derivation. IMO, in both cases, by derivation we would mean that the existence of iv2 cannot hold without the existence of iv1. I put down a revised definition of derivation: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_Jun. "Derivation expresses the dependency relationship between two IVPTs, which might be of the same thing or different things. The existence of the derived IVPT must rely on the existence of another IVPT that it is derived from." It is quite similar to what Khalid proposes, but without enforcing the necessity of specializing derivation for different cases. It is also quite similar to James' proposal: "...naming it as a relationship that can hold between IVPTs as judged by some observer/perspective/account, whose criteria for judging this may be objective (e.g. using a mathematical theory of causality), legalistic (using defeasible / argumentation) or completely subjective (I know it when I see it). " but without enforcing the existence of observer/perspective/account. -- Jun On 09/06/11 13:11, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 14 June 2011 14:53:28 UTC