Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review

Hi Simon, Paul,
It seems that we are having a bit of confusion with the definition of
derivation. In particular,
to the "the construction of a new entity *based *on a pre-existing entity"
part.
Is doc 1 "based" on ref 1 for referencing it, even if the work described in
Doc1 is not derived from ref 1?

In this mapping we don't want to make any assumptions on the definitions.
If Luc and Paul
(and the rest of the group) agree that including a reference implies
derivation, then we will
be happy to map it.

If this is the case, would this mean that Doc1 is derived from the letter
"e"? (We wouldn't have
been able to construct doc1 without that letter).

I have to recognize that adding such a mapping would be misleading for some
people. Since the
definition of derivation is a bit broad, it could be lead them to think
that the referenced work
was crucial for the described work (like a transformation), which may not
always be the case.
It is a matter of distinguishing the document itself from the work being
described in the document...

Best,
Daniel




2013/2/22 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>

>  Hi Dani,
>
>  Regarding referencing and derivation, I think that if the document said
> "The construction of this document (Doc1) was not based on REF 1" it would
> simply be an untrue statement. In order to reference REF 1, you need to
> give identifying information about it within Doc1. Therefore, Doc1's
> construction (its bibliography if nothing else) is based on pre-existing
> entity REF 1.
>
>  Your argument seems to be assuming a particular form of derivation,
> where sentences within Doc1 were quoted, paraphrased or inspired by
> sentences in REF 1. But I'd argue this is not the only way that one entity
> may be derived from another, and I think the "based on" part of the
> wasDerivedFrom definition tries to account for this.
>
>  I'm also still unclear what the PROV relation between Doc1 and REF 1
> would be if it is not derivation. As Doc1's existence required REF 1's
> existence (else Doc1 wouldn't be able to refer to it), there must be some
> provenance relationship, surely?
>
>  thanks,
> Simon
>
>      Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
>     Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance
> Model:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
>          ------------------------------
> *From:* dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] on behalf of Daniel
> Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
> *Sent:* 22 February 2013 16:17
> *To:* Miles, Simon; Kai Eckert; Kai Eckert
> *Cc:* <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review
>
>  Hi Simon,
> thanks for your quick response!
>
> 2013/2/22 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
>
>>  Hello Daniel, Kai,
>>
>>  Thanks for the detailed responses and changes. I've skimmed the
>> document, and it looks good. I'm also happy with the updates made in
>> response to my comments. I have two remaining comments below. Neither are
>> blocking issues and I'm happy for the note to go to FPWD.
>>
> Great!
>
>>
>>  1. In the abstract, one sentence doesn't quite make sense: "The direct
>> mappings are broad and usually a more complex mapping can be specified," It
>> is not clear what you mean by "broad", or why this is connected to
>> specifying complex mappings. "Broad" is generally a positive term, while
>> "complex" is a negative one. Intuitively, if the direct mappings are
>> "broad", then this means they apply to many cases, but if so, why would you
>> want to specify complex mappings? Complex mappings can be specified but,
>> given that we want to avoid complexity, why do you need to? It needs to be
>> rephrased.
>>
> I will look into it.
>
>>
>>  2. I still can't understand how dct:references can be not a subproperty
>> of prov:wasDerivedFrom. Expanding the example in your response, the
>> complete document DOC1 might say:
>>   "This work has nothing to do with this random reference [REF1].
>>    [REF1] Kai and Daniel, Discussion on derivation, 2010."
>> First, DOC1 can only have the content it does if REF1 first exists, so
>> REF1 is part of the provenance of DOC1. If the connection between the two,
>> as expressed in PROV, is not derivation, what is it? Furthermore, DOC1 has
>> to identify REF1 in order to reference it, e.g. this is done by title,
>> authors and year above, and these identifiers are part of what REF1 is.
>> Therefore, how can DOC1 not be derived from REF1?
>>
>
> Regarding the definition of derivation, "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*", it is
> clear that this case is not a transformation or an update of an entity into
> another. So we are discussing the third part (highlighted). My concern here
> (and Michael's) is that stating a derivation is kind of contradictory. What
> if the text was "The construction of this document (Doc1) was not based on
> REF 1". Stating the derivation would imply exactly the opposite. Derivation
> is too strong in this case, don't you think?.
>
> Best,
> Dani
>
>>
>>  thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>>      Dr Simon Miles
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>
>>     Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance
>> Model:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
>>          ------------------------------
>> *From:* dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] on behalf of Daniel
>> Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
>> *Sent:* 20 February 2013 17:19
>> *To:* <public-prov-wg@w3.org>; Ivan Herman; Miles, Simon; Luc Moreau
>> *Subject:* PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review
>>
>>   Hi all,
>> Kai and I have gone through the issues and we have given a pass through
>> the whole document.
>> I have reestructured it and now I think it reads better.
>> The latest version can be accessed at:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/dc-note.html
>>
>> A detailed answer to the reviews made by Simon and Luc can be accessed
>> here:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/AnswersToProvDCReviewers (on the bottom
>> of the page)
>>
>> The wiki page also summarizes the decissions over the main changes
>> proposed to the mapping.
>> All issues are now pending review. Once I get the confirmation from Simon
>> and Luc, I'll proceed to stage
>> the note.
>>
>> @Ivan: I need to update 2 documents that are linked from the note (in
>> particular
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl and
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-refinements.ttl.
>> Both have changed a little bit). Who should I contact to do so?
>> The right versions can be accessed at
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/dc-note/files/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl
>> and
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/dc-note/files/prov-dc-refinements.ttlrespectively.
>>
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>>
>
>