- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:00:24 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
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 >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:27:40 UTC