- From: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:59:09 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2012, at 16:42, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > I would remove it. +1 Tim > > Paul > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi Paul and Tim, >> >> Inserted the text and example. >> I am not clear whether you want to keep the reference to google's >> original source >> (and associated example). >> >> Luc >> >> On 11/06/12 21:09, Paul Groth wrote: >>> I think in this case, we could acknowledge this sort of pattern in a >>> primer. I don't think we have to slavishly follow wikipedia and the >>> attribution pattern sounds like the way around it and it keeps the >>> model tidy. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Tim Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jun 11, 2012, at 15:23, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> HimPail, >>>>> Sound good to me. Tim? >>>>> If ok, i'll insert this in the document. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Below... >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I like this better than Luc's rewrite. >>>> However, it does lose the "document or person" openness that Wikipedia says, PML permitted, and some users have expected in general. >>>> >>>> With this new "document only" definition, do we demand that one must ask who was attributed as author of the primary source? It seems reasonable to me, but we should acknowledge that it requires the extra step for those use cases. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> 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 bu >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > -- > 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 21:00:16 UTC