- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:41:32 +0200
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTimqYjWU+mDZKjdLG8OhaaJ2QbPUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Khalid, so, according to your first definition, a "derivation" between to IVPTs (iv1 and iv2) would always mean that the former has a "use" relationship between iv1 and the process execution that generated iv2 ? I think that it may be an incorrect assertion in some cases, because I could use iv1 to compare something in a process execution and generate iv2 as result, but it would not necessarily mean that iv2 has been derived from iv1. Thanks, Daniel 2011/6/9 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> > > Hi, > > > >Agreed that time ordering is a necessary property but it is not > sufficient. Can we try to give some intuition of what Derivation consists > of, beyond time ordering, without being controversial? > >That's what I was trying to do by suggesting information flow (or > alternatively transformation). > > One possible approach would be to identify possible derivations based on > the kinds of dependencies that exists in workflows (or processes). > Typically, there are two kinds: > > - Data-based derivation: an IVPT iv2 is derived from another IVPT iv1, if > the process execution that generated iv2 did so using (the content of) iv1. > > - Control-based derivation: an IVPT iv2 is derived from another IVPT iv1 if > the decision of generating iv2 was made based on iv1. > > Thanks, khalid > > > > Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> On 9 Jun 2011, at 07:38, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >> >> One might just delete the word "causal"? The real essence is captured by >>> "needs to have existed" IMO. >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Graham, >>>> Thanks for the quote ;-) >>>> Paulo, during the life of the Incubator, repeatedly criticized the >>>> notion of "causal relationship". >>>> In what way is this causal? It's a bit like using the term "influence" >>>> discussed earlier. >>>> Regards, >>>> Luc >>>> On 08/06/11 18:47, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've added something based on OPM, which always made sense to me: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_adapted_by_Graham >>>>> >>>>> #g >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> Another perspective on derivation: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_Luc >>>>>> >>>>>> Luc >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Paul and Daniel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:13 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Luc, all: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it really necessary to go down this road of defining influence. I >>>>>>>> have this fear that we will never bottom out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are certain concepts that need to be defined terminologically >>>>>>>> others may not. It depends on what are the core building blocks of the model >>>>>>>> are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose we wouldn't want the standard model to be >>>>>>> over-constraining, to allow for many forms of derivations (in physical, >>>>>>> digital, conceptual contexts). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, what are the (minimum) properties that need to be satisfied in >>>>>>> order to qualify as a derivation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having identified a concept of Invariant View or Perspective on >>>>>>>>> Thing (IVPT), I'd like to go back >>>>>>>>> to the meaning of Derivation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Several of you indicated that Derivation expresses that one IVPT >>>>>>>>> was influenced by another IVPT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Paolo has asked what does it mean to 'influence'? It's a good >>>>>>>>> question! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Will we be able to define a notion of influence that applies for >>>>>>>>> all things, >>>>>>>>> whether physical, digital, conceptual, or other? Should we go down >>>>>>>>> the road of >>>>>>>>> modelling influence in specific domains? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/05/11 20:34, Stephan Zednik wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Luc, all >>>>>>>>>>> In the example c2 is also a derivation of d2, and from my point >>>>>>>>>>> of view, >>>>>>>>>>> c2 could also be seen as a derivation from c1, since it is the >>>>>>>>>>> chart taken as reference >>>>>>>>>>> and corected in c2... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As for your second question, I think that if we want to be able >>>>>>>>>>> to cover >>>>>>>>>>> provenance from resources, resources representations and >>>>>>>>>>> resources state >>>>>>>>>>> representation, a derivation must be able to refer to all of >>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From the existing example/scenario section on Derivation: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A derivation is a relation between two Resource State >>>>>>>>>> Representations that expresses that one RSR was influenced by the other RSR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A agree that a derivation should be a relation between two like >>>>>>>>>> resource abstractions, and I agree with Daniel in that I am not sure we >>>>>>>>>> should limit it to RSR. I believe one Resource could be derived from >>>>>>>>>> another Resource, and same with Resource State. I also believe derivation >>>>>>>>>> covers a large spectrum of relationships - FRBR has covered some of this >>>>>>>>>> ground on the wide spectrum of different types of derivation so thankfully >>>>>>>>>> we do not have to start from scratch. Stories can be derived from other >>>>>>>>>> stores, editions of publications are derived from earlier editions, >>>>>>>>>> adaptions are derived works, translations are derived expressions, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suggest an quick overview of FRBR's conclusions on derivations >>>>>>>>>> to provide direction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I also agree with the suggestion that Version be a specialization >>>>>>>>>> / subtype of Derivation, as suggested in the Version section of the existing >>>>>>>>>> example/scenario. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --Stephan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2011/5/27 Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week, we debated the notion of resource >>>>>>>>>>> (PROV-ISSUE-1), >>>>>>>>>>> one of the concepts identified in the charter as core to a >>>>>>>>>>> provenance >>>>>>>>>>> data model. It would be good to discuss the notion of >>>>>>>>>>> derivation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we agree with the illustration of derivation [1]: >>>>>>>>>>> in the example, chart c1 is a derivation of data set d1. >>>>>>>>>>> Are there other interesting illustrations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is derivation relating resources/resource >>>>>>>>>>> representations/resource >>>>>>>>>>> representation states? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 05/20/2011 08:07 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for Concept >>>>>>>>>>> 'Derivation' [Provenance Terminology] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>>>>>>> On product: Provenance Terminology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept >>>>>>>>>>> 'Derivation' as a core concept of the provenance >>>>>>>>>>> interchange >>>>>>>>>>> language to be standardized (see >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>>>> How do we define the concept 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>>>> Where does concept 'Derivation' appear in >>>>>>>>>>> ProvenanceExample? >>>>>>>>>>> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wiki page: >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- 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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>>>>>>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 11:42:10 UTC