Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012

Hi Graham,

This proposal is already a simplification of what is currently there.
The number of relations has been reduced from 3 to one.

wasDerivedFrom is central as it specifically connects two entities
together.

cheers
Paul



Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 13:41, Paul Groth wrote:
>> 2) There is a proposal on derivation to resolve ISSUE-249. Please see
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
>
> In its present form, I can't be sure what it's trying to say, so I'd have to
> vote against.
>
> The ASN template and the description of terms do not match up.
>
> I don't understand "identifier for the generation involving the generated entity
> and activity"
>
> I don't understand " identifier for the usage involving the used entity and
> activity"
>
> Assuming section 1 is intended to go in DM part 1, then I think the paragraphj
> about transitivity is out of place.
>
> Why do we need anything other than:
>
>       wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, [attr])
>
> ?
>
> At heart, generation is about two entities and an activity, so the full gamut of
> possibilities can be captured by
>
>     wasGeneratedBy
>     used
>
> statements
>
> Thus the wasDerivedFrom is available as a convenience property to describe the
> derivation when further information about the activity is not available.
>
> Note that I've deliberately ignored the multiple-stage derivation case.  When
> the derivation passes through a chain of activities, one could, if needed,
> introduce a new activity that is the composition of the sequence involved in the
> derivation.  In practice, I don't see that this arises in the simple cases.
>
> In summary, I propose: simplify!
>
> #g
> --
>

-- 
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 Wednesday, 7 March 2012 10:12:54 UTC