datalink-terms

[Arnold Rots]

I think the distinction is important.
If a user is presented with a number of identical products, two things are
important:
(1) These data products are identical; i.e., no need to look at all of them
(2) This one is the original; this provides information that may be
important for the client's prefernces.

And "mirror of" (or something equivalent) is very different from "derived
from" - which implies "not identical" and presumably added value.

Cheers,

  - Arnold

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                          Chandra X-ray
Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                   tel:  +1 617 496
7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                                      fax:  +1 617
495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138
arots at cfa.harvard.edu
USA
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Kristin Riebe <kriebe at aip.de> wrote:

> Hi Pat, Arnold, Norman and all the others,
>
> just a few comments from my side on the terms, though I must admit that
> I haven't looked closely at DataLink yet:
>
> * "mirror of" and "derived from":
> The W3C provenance model (see http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/) provides
> the terms "wasDerivedFrom" for entities (data sets) that are derived
> from an activity.
> Additionally there are  "AlternateOf" as well as "SpecializationOf" to
> specify if a data set is an alternative or a specialisation of another
> data set.
>
> I'm not so sure if we really need to distinguish between original and
> mirrored instances (they should be exactly the same, in fact, and
> treating them separately may cause more work than necessary); but if we
> do this, I suggest to use the W3C terms "wasDerivedFrom" and
> "AlternateOf". "AlternateOf" could also be used for e.g. data sets in
> different formats, representing potentially the same thing.
>
> And I like Norman's suggestion and would define them as subproperties of
> #from.
>
>
> * #derivation for forward links:
> W3C uses the term "Derivation" in the passive form ("wasDerivedFrom",
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Derivation), i.e. it is used there
> for pointing backwards to where something is coming from.
>
> So I would like to avoid confusion when just using #derivation and
> specify more explicitly that this is a forward link, e.g. using
> #derivedEntities or similar.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kristin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/21/2014 10:53 PM, Patrick Dowler wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I had missed out on the provenance related terms. I like the idea
> > of having the generic top-level term(s) now and can add specifics later.
> >
> > Normally, we think about having a link from a product back to the input,
> > but it is equally valid and potentially more interesting to provide a
> > link to a (better) derived product.
> >
> > In that light,
> >
> > #derivation describes a forward link to a product aka "is a #derivation
> > from #this" +1
> >
> > It's kind of a "you might be interested in this thing over here..." :-)
> >
> > For the backward link to "inputs" I find #predecessor pretty vague as
> > there are many sorts of sequences, not just provenance... predecessor
> > also implies that the "original" has been replaced or made obsolete...
> > something less specific than #input would probably be good. #precursor
> > and #progenitor are ok, but a bit fancy sounding and I'm tired of going
> > around thesaurus circle... anyone have a better word for this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21/10/14 03:50 AM, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> >> Let me propose #derivation as a top-level label for the merged-order
> >> file in the split-order datalink.  I can't see myself liking
> >> #predecessor or #ancestor for the files some reduced data set is
> >> derived from, so better ideas  are solicited.
> >>
> >> Having #predecessor and #derivation (or whatever) would, I'd argue,
> >> do for now.  Further details would be up to a proper provenance data
> >> model or actual software using those wonders.
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Dr. Kristin Riebe
> | eScience & GAVO
> |
> | Email: kriebe at aip.de
> | Phone: +49 331 7499-377
> | Room:  B6/25
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)
> | An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482 Potsdam
> | Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Matthias Steinmetz,  Dr. Ulrich Müller
> |
> | Stiftungsverzeichnis Brandenburg: 26 742-00/7026
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20141022/8255305d/attachment.html>