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

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
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 22:42:37 UTC