- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:12:38 +0200
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Something like that...I need to look at the exact definition of derived from. Paul On Jul 24, 2011, at 20:43, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Ok, I must admit I didn't understand that. Just to clarify, when one say > isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t), does that means that b2 was created at t? > > Thanks, khalid > > > On 24/07/2011 18:33, Paul Groth wrote: >> Hi Khalid, >> >> I don't think this is what I mean. >> >> It's not when the assertion was made. It's when the derivation occurred according to the asserter. >> >> Just as with use and generation. It's the time at which these events occur according to the asserter. >> >> Thanks >> Paul >> >> On Jul 24, 2011, at 18:08, Khalid Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 24/07/2011 15:35, Myers, Jim wrote: >>>> (The time is not the interval over which the derivation relation is >>>> valid - in the same way the time on USED is not the time when that >>>> relation is valid (it would be if the semantics were 'in use during >>>> interval t') - both just describe the time when an enduring relationship >>>> was first formed.) >>> Agreed, that what I was hinting to in my last response email to Paul. >>> The time I was referring to in my email was the validity, but Paul, I >>> think, was talking about the time where the derivation was formed. >>> >>> Which leads me to a new proposal. Instead of having the time as argument >>> to USE, GENERATION and derivation, e.g., isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t). Would >>> it be sensible to assume, instead, that every assertion may be >>> associated with a time in which it was formed? >>> >>> Thanks, Khalid >>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:27 AM >>>>> To: Paul Groth >>>>> Cc: Provenance Working Group WG; Provenance Working Group Issue >>>> Tracker >>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have >>>>> associated time [Conceptual Model] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>> >>>>> On 24/07/2011 13:13, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>> Hi Khalid >>>>>> But why can't I say that a newspaper article is derived from a >>>> picture at a >>>>> particular time? Or for that matter over a period of time. >>>>> >>>>> The way I see it, is that there will be a bob representing the >>>> newspaper article >>>>> and another representing the picture. If there is evidence that the >>>> latter is >>>>> derived from the former, then the derivation will always hold between >>>> those >>>>> two bobs. >>>>> >>>>> Now, that I am writing this email, I am wondering whether we are >>>> referring to >>>>> the same notion of time. In your statement, isDerivedFrom(b1,b2,t), I >>>> think you >>>>> mean t is used to refers to the time in which the derivation assertion >>>> was >>>>> made, whereas what I was thinking of is the (period of) time in which >>>> the >>>>> derivation holds. Is that the case? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>>> The time is when the derivation occurred not when it applies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2011, at 13:06, Khalid >>>>> Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that "Use" and "Generation" should be associated with time. >>>>>>> However, I don't think we should associate time to derivation. >>>>>>> I would argue that isDerivedFrom(b1,b2) holds all time. Although b1 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> b2 may no longer exist, isDerivedFrom(b1,b2) is still valid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23/07/2011 16:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have >>>> associated >>>>>>>> time [Conceptual Model] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Raised by: Paul Groth >>>>>>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other relationships have time associated with them (e.g. use, >>>>>>>> generation, control) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no optional time associated with derivation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggested resolution is to add the following to the definition of >>>>> isDerivedFrom: >>>>>>>> - May contain a "derived from time" t, the time or time intervals >>>>>>>> when b1 was derived from b2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Example: >>>>>>>> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2, t) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 20:13:14 UTC