- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:33:13 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Dooh, auto spell, Hi Paul, .... Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 11 Jun 2012, at 20:23, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > HimPail, > Sound good to me. Tim? > If ok, i'll insert this in the document. > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 11 Jun 2012, at 19:09, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > >> Hi Luc, >> >> I would like to keep this as a subtype of derivation. Thus, if we >> constrain it to things I think it would fit the model much better. >> Suggested revision would be: >> >> A primary source for a topic refers to something produced by agents >> with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time of >> the topic's study, without benefit from hindsight. >> >> Because of the directness of primary sources, they "speak for >> themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of >> secondary sources. As such, it is important for secondary sources to >> reference those primary sources from which they were derived, so that >> their reliability can be investigated. >> >> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of >> secondary materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that >> the etermination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and >> should be done according to conventions accepted within the >> application's domain. >> >> Paul >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I think it's good, it conveys better the notion. >>> >>> Instead of talking about writer, i suggest we talk about people (actually, >>> they may have not >>> written something, but may have spoken about it). >>> >>> >>> However, thinking about this, what's the implication for types? if agent and >>> entity are in the range, >>> then this is not a subtype of derivation. >>> >>> To avoid the term writer I would suggest to rewrite as follows. >>> >>> A primary source for a topic refers to people or material produced by people >>> with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time of the >>> topic's study, without benefit from hindsight. >>> >>> Because of the directness of primary sources, they "speak for themselves" in >>> ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources. As >>> such, it is important for secondary sources to reference those primary >>> sources from which they were derived, so that their reliability can be >>> investigated. >>> >>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of secondary >>> materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that the >>> determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be >>> done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 08/06/2012 18:54, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>> Luc, >>> >>> >>> Now that I understand the intent of Primary Source, I'd like to try to get a >>> definition that communicates it effectively. >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, guys, please give me a definition/text/examples for this, I have been >>> trying for six months … >>> >>> >>> I've included one below. >>> >>> >>> I thought we wanted to keep a subtype of derivation, Tim, but you seem also >>> to introduce a type of entity. >>> I find this is becoming too heavy. >>> >>> >>> Sorry, I kept my proposal to reflect the "relation only" aspect that DM >>> currently has for primary topic. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From what I gather, the discussion at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source helped many group members to >>> understand the intent behind the term. >>> Currently, I do not find that the same message is reflected in the DM, which >>> I'm quoting below. >>> >>> Luc had also pointed >>> out http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#derivation-generation-generation-ordering >>> as being particularly relevant to my point "A primary source (also >>> called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, >>> or other source of information that was created at the time under study." >>> >>> So, my definition, proposing to replace the current DM's definition and >>> example: >>> >>> =========== PROPOSED ======= >>> A primary source refers to material whose writer has direct experience and >>> knowledge about the topic in question; the writing of such materials is done >>> at the time under study and does not benefit from hindsight. >>> A primary source may also be the writer of such material. Because of the >>> directness of primary sources, they "speak for themselves" in ways that >>> cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources. As such, it is >>> important for secondary sources to reference those primary sources from >>> which they were derived, so that their reliability can be investigated. >>> >>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of secondary >>> materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that the >>> determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be >>> done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain. >>> >>> Example 32 >>> >>> Let us consider Charles Joseph Minard's flow map of Napoleon's March in >>> 1812, which was published in 1869. Although the map is not a primary source, >>> Minard probably used the journal of Pierre-Irénée Jacob, pharmacist >>> to Napoleon's army during the Russian campaign. This primary source relation >>> can be encoded in the following prov-n expressions. >>> >>> entity(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813) >>> entity(ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII) >>> wasDerivedFrom(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813, >>> ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII, >>> [ prov:type='prov:Source' ]) >>> ============================= >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments welcome. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Some materials accumulated while trying to piece together the proposal: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========= DM ===== >>> A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the >>> person, information, period, or idea being studied. >>> >>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation that aims to >>> give credit to the source that originated some information. It is recognized >>> that it may be hard to determine which entity constitutes a primary source. >>> This definition is inspired by original-source as defined >>> in http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html. >>> >>> Example 32 >>> Let us consider the concept introduced in the current section, identified >>> as dm:concept-primary-source, and the Google >>> page go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, where the notion original-source >>> was originally described (to the knowledge of the authors). >>> >>> entity(dm:concept-primary-source) >>> entity(go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) >>> wasDerivedFrom(dm:concept-primary-source, >>> go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, >>> [ prov:type='prov:HadPrimarySource' ]) >>> >>> ============== >>> >>> >>> >>> ==== http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html=== >>> >>> "original-source indicates the URL of the first article to report on a >>> story. We encourage publishers to use this metatag to give credit to the >>> source that broke the story. We recognize that this can sometimes be tough >>> to determine. But the intent of this tag is to reward hard work and >>> journalistic enterprise." >>> >>> Tim is concerned that "the first article to report a story" may not actually >>> be a primary source as discussed by wikipedia's Primary Source. >>> >>> ============= >>> >>> >>> ====== some clips from wikipedia ======== >>> "primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of >>> hindsight" >>> "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary" >>> "a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, >>> a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at >>> the time under study." >>> "a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a >>> document created by such a person." >>> "an important objective of classifying sources [as primary] is to determine >>> the independence and reliability of sources" >>> "they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the >>> filter of secondary sources" >>> "modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, >>> as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate >>> or not, offer new input into historical questions" >>> "used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, >>> and other information that is passed from one author to another." >>> >>> "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a >>> scientist's new data, results, and theories. In political history, primary >>> sources are documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, >>> posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and >>> eyewitness accounts. In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the >>> main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by >>> intellectuals." >>> >>> "In a broader sense primary sources also include artifacts like photographs, >>> newsreels, coins, paintings or buildings created at the time." >>> >>> "Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created by the >>> people involved, at the time being studied." >>> "Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical >>> questions" >>> "primary sources have the most direct connection to the past, and that they >>> "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of >>> secondary sources" >>> ======================= >>> >>> >>> =========== >>> http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html >>> ====== >>> "They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or >>> conditions being documented." >>> ================= >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> On 06/06/2012 01:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>> Luc, >>> >>> Regarding the name, >>> Yes, I think we agreed on hadPrimarySource. >>> >>> >>> >>> Though, looking at the definition at >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source >>> : >>> >>> A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the >>> person, information, period, or idea being studied. >>> >>> 1) A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation that aims to >>> give credit to the source that originated some information. It is recognized >>> that it may be hard to determine which entity constitutes a primary source. >>> This definition is inspired by original-source as defined in >>> http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html. >>> >>> does not lead me think of what is described >>> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >>> >>> 2) A primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an >>> artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was >>> created at the time under study. >>> >>> >>> >>> #1 still gives me this loose bloggy feel, and not the curation feel that I >>> think is important for Primary Sources. >>> >>> While #2 claims "it's hard to determine", I disagree, #1 is clear that it >>> must have been "created at the time under study". >>> >>> I suggesting making #2 the definition, and attenuating the emphasis >>> on http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html (by >>> perhaps stating that "in the blogosphere, Primary source is a concern as >>> discussed by googlenewsblog) >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:43 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> Yes. It remains as such. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> hasPrimarySource or hadPrimarySource? >>> >>> >>> Is the definition remaining unchanged beyond s/original/primary/ ? >>> >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 06/06/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> I believe that the consensus is to rename it to PrimarySource. >>> >>> >>> hasPrimarySource >>> >>> >>> Is that correct, Jim, Tim. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Paul, Tim, Jim, all, >>> >>> >>> What's the consensus on this? What definition and name do you want to >>> >>> adopt for this >>> >>> relation? >>> >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. >>> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> hadPrimarySource is much clearer. Anyone who has paid attention in history >>> >>> class (at least in the US) should be familiar with the idea of primary >>> >>> sources, so I think it's probably the most useful term. >>> >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi TIm, >>> >>> >>> I think i'm bending your way. If other's think primary source is more >>> >>> intelligible then I'm happy to change this. >>> >>> I think Luc also finally "got' this relation when I pointed him to the >>> >>> wiki page so maybe that says something as well. >>> >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This is the same intent as the google definition of original source in >>> >>> my reading of their post. I would consider primary source but think >>> >>> original source has some history of usage on the web already. >>> >>> >>> >>> Where on the web is "original source" used? >>> >>> Blogging? >>> >>> >>> Anywhere else? >>> >>> I'm not a blogger, and I haven't seen "original source". >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah, orginalsource had the meaning >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh, did we shift from the meaning taken from that Google Blog about >>> >>> journalism ? >>> >>> (which, I can't find in any public draft, so I guess "yes"…) >>> >>> >>> I like the description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >>> >>> __much__ better, >>> >>> I had no idea that that was the intent of hadOriginalSource. >>> >>> >>> Since wikipedia choose the name "primary", perhaps we should too. >>> >>> I would be in favor of renaming: >>> >>> >>> hadOriginalSource -> hadPrimarySource >>> >>> >>> Now that I understand the concept, I'd rather this than the >>> >>> "originatedFrom", which is drastically different. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To me a "big change" now is changing stuff that has been in the spec >>> >>> in a number of drafts. I won't really argue hard but I want to be >>> >>> convinced that this is worth it. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's reasonable. But perhaps it indicates that the bigger problems >>> >>> are out of the way now :-) >>> >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same >>> >>> meaning. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that they are pretty close in meaning, and one follows the >>> >>> naming style more appropriately. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of >>> >>> things. >>> >>> >>> >>> How do you measure "big"? >>> >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue >>> >>> Tracker >>> >>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? >>> >>> [prov-dm] >>> >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/395 >>> >>> >>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>> >>> On product: prov-dm >>> >>> >>> DM editors, >>> >>> >>> Could hadOriginalSource be renamed to "originatedFrom" ? >>> >>> >>> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more >>> >>> closely, and avoids an exception to PROV-O's "has" naming convention. >>> >>> >>> Then, perhaps the Involvement "Source" could be renamed "Origin"? >>> >>> >>> And qualifiedSource would become qualifiedOrigin. >>> >>> >>> I think that this naming is a little more natural. >>> >>> >>> (yes, this is phrased in terms of PROV-O, but an issue on DM; >>> >>> probably best product would be mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o...) >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>> >>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>> >>> Assistant Professor >>> >>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>> >>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>> >>> Department of Computer Science >>> >>> VU University Amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>> >>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>> >>> Assistant Professor >>> >>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>> >>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>> >>> Department of Computer Science >>> >>> VU University Amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>> >>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>> >>> Assistant Professor >>> >>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>> >>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>> >>> Department of Computer Science >>> >>> VU University Amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>> >>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>> >>> Assistant Professor >>> >>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>> >>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>> >>> Department of Computer Science >>> >>> VU University Amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jim McCusker >>> >>> Programmer Analyst >>> >>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>> >>> Yale School of Medicine >>> >>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >>> >>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >>> >>> >>> PhD Student >>> >>> Tetherless World Constellation >>> >>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>> >>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >>> >>> http://tw.rpi.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>> Assistant Professor >>> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group >>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>> Department of Computer Science >>> VU University Amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >> Assistant Professor >> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group >> Artificial Intelligence Section >> Department of Computer Science >> VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 19:33:49 UTC