W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Primary Source again (Re: PROV-ISSUE-518: Data Model Section 5.2.4 ) [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:22:27 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f52bbb9f048c9e18d208e11fd2b3aa9bo9FNNm08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|507DDE23.3050602@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
CC: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Dear all,

I am also adding the following proposed response to ISSUE-518 to the 
list of responses to review.
It takes some recent feedback into account.

Regards,
Luc
>
>
>       ISSUE-518 (PrimarySource)
>
>   * Original
>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0108.html
>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/518
>   * Group Response
>       o Following the author's suggestion the Working group proposes
>         to revise the definition of Primary Source as follows:
>           + A reference to a primary source indicates a derivation
>             from an entity that was produced by some agent with direct
>             experience and knowledge about the entity's conceptual
>             topic, at the time of the topic's study, without benefit
>             of hindsight.
>       o We also propose to add the following comment, inspired by this
>         issue:
>           + It is also important to note that a given entity might be
>             a primary source for one entity but not another. It the
>             reason why Primary Source is defined as a relation as
>             opposed to a subtype of Entity.
>   * References:
>   * Changes to the document: To implement
>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>



On 28/09/12 08:43, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Luc,
>
> This comparison doesn't work for me.
>
> The aspect of a relationship is inherent in the term "communication" 
> (cf. "by two activities"), but such is not present in the bare phrase 
> "primary source".
>
> Hence it's possible to get away without saying explicitly 
> "relationship" with regard to communication.
>
> Similarly for "derivation".
>
> #g
> -- 
>
> On 27/09/2012 23:45, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephan:
>>
>> Look at the two following definitions (others are similar)
>>
>> Communication ◊ is the exchange of some unspecified entity by two 
>> activities,
>> one activity using some entity generated by the other.
>> A derivation ◊ is a transformation of an entity into another, an 
>> update of an
>> entity resulting in a new one, or the construction of a new entity 
>> based on a
>> pre-existing entity.
>>
>> They don't state "communication is a relation ..." or "The derivation 
>> relation
>> is ...".
>>
>> That's what I wanted to avoid in the definition of primary source you 
>> suggested.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 27/09/12 23:42, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> Luc,
>>>
>>> I am not sure I follow you here. What is your distinction between a 
>>> concept
>>> and a relation in the data model?
>>>
>>> As for Graham's proposed definition, I do not like the dual usage of 
>>> 'primary
>>> source' as both a relation and the thing being related to.
>>>
>>> Like Graham I like the inclusion of the term 'relation' because I do 
>>> not want
>>> to introduce confusion regarding whether primary source is a 
>>> specialization of
>>> entity, but I would recommend we drop the second usage of primary 
>>> source where
>>> it appears to be mentioned as a noun.
>>>
>>> [[
>>> A primary source relation indicates a derivation from an entity that 
>>> records
>>> direct contemporaneous experience or knowledge about its topic, 
>>> without the
>>> revisionary perspective of hindsight.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> --Stephan
>>>
>>> On Sep 27, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> but this definition would not be aligned with the other, since we 
>>>> define the
>>>> concept as opposed to the relation in a data model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27/09/12 22:15, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>>> Well, for starters, there's Stephan's original. I wouldn't drop 
>>>>> "relation"
>>>>> here. Since you ask, here's my cut:
>>>>>
>>>>> [[
>>>>> A primary source relation indicates a derivation from a primary 
>>>>> source. I.e.
>>>>> from an entity that records direct contemporaneous experience or 
>>>>> knowledge
>>>>> about its topic, without the revisionary perspective of hindsight.
>>>>> ]]
>>>>>
>>>>> #g
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/09/2012 19:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>> Hi graham,
>>>>>> Can you make a concrete suggestion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>>>> University of Southampton
>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2012, at 16:27, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find this revision of Stephan's phrasing to be confusing, even
>>>>>>> contradictory. "a primary source is a derivation" seems a bit 
>>>>>>> oxymoronic
>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #g
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/09/2012 17:57, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>> HI Stephan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would just drop "relation" (because we define the concept) and
>>>>>>>> "represents":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A primary source is a derivation from an entity that was 
>>>>>>>> produced by some
>>>>>>>> agent
>>>>>>>> with direct experience and knowledge about the entity's 
>>>>>>>> conceptual topic,
>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>> time of the topic's study, without benefit of hindsight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/25/2012 05:48 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How is this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A primary source relation represents a derivation from an 
>>>>>>>>> entity that was
>>>>>>>>> produced by some agent with direct experience and knowledge 
>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>> entity's
>>>>>>>>> conceptual topic, at the time of the topic's study, without 
>>>>>>>>> benefit of
>>>>>>>>> hindsight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do we address this issue?
>>>>>>>>>> The current definition is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aprimary 
>>>>>>>>>> source^◊<http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#concept-primary-source>
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> a topic refers to something produced by some agent with direct
>>>>>>>>>> experience and
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge about the topic, at the time of the topic's study, 
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>> from hindsight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder whether the wording 'refers to' is suitable here. We 
>>>>>>>>>> don't mean
>>>>>>>>>> 'is', but 'a derivation from'. Would this address the concern?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/09/2012 09:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-518: Data Model Section 5.2.4 [prov-dm]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/518
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>>>>>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.2.4 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ISSUE-463
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The definition of a "primary source" implies that it is an 
>>>>>>>>>>> entity when in
>>>>>>>>>>> fact the term qualifies the role that a given entity plays 
>>>>>>>>>>> during the
>>>>>>>>>>> creation of a new entity, not the derivation itself. This 
>>>>>>>>>>> might seem
>>>>>>>>>>> to be a
>>>>>>>>>>> minor point, but it is clearly different from both revision and
>>>>>>>>>>> quotation,
>>>>>>>>>>> both of which could be used when deriving a new entity from 
>>>>>>>>>>> an entity
>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>> as a primary source.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is also important to note that a given entity might be a 
>>>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>> for one entity but not another ("primary source" is 
>>>>>>>>>>> context-dependent).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 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 Kingdomhttp://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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

-- 
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
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 22:24:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC