<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>I think the distinction is important.<br></div>If a user is presented with a number of identical products, two things are important:<br></div>(1) These data products are identical; i.e., no need to look at all of them<br></div>(2) This one is the original; this provides information that may be important for the client's prefernces.<br><br></div>And "mirror of" (or something equivalent) is very different from "derived from" - which implies "not identical" and presumably added value.<br><br></div>Cheers,<br><br></div> - Arnold<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Arnold H. Rots Chandra X-ray Science Center<br>Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory tel: +1 617 496 7701<br>60 Garden Street, MS 67 fax: +1 617 495 7356<br>Cambridge, MA 02138 <a href="mailto:arots@cfa.harvard.edu" target="_blank">arots@cfa.harvard.edu</a><br>USA <a href="http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/" target="_blank">http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/</a><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Kristin Riebe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kriebe@aip.de" target="_blank">kriebe@aip.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Pat, Arnold, Norman and all the others,<br>
<br>
just a few comments from my side on the terms, though I must admit that<br>
I haven't looked closely at DataLink yet:<br>
<br>
* "mirror of" and "derived from":<br>
The W3C provenance model (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/</a>) provides<br>
the terms "wasDerivedFrom" for entities (data sets) that are derived<br>
from an activity.<br>
Additionally there are "AlternateOf" as well as "SpecializationOf" to<br>
specify if a data set is an alternative or a specialisation of another<br>
data set.<br>
<br>
I'm not so sure if we really need to distinguish between original and<br>
mirrored instances (they should be exactly the same, in fact, and<br>
treating them separately may cause more work than necessary); but if we<br>
do this, I suggest to use the W3C terms "wasDerivedFrom" and<br>
"AlternateOf". "AlternateOf" could also be used for e.g. data sets in<br>
different formats, representing potentially the same thing.<br>
<br>
And I like Norman's suggestion and would define them as subproperties of<br>
#from.<br>
<br>
<br>
* #derivation for forward links:<br>
W3C uses the term "Derivation" in the passive form ("wasDerivedFrom",<br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Derivation" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-Derivation</a>), i.e. it is used there<br>
for pointing backwards to where something is coming from.<br>
<br>
So I would like to avoid confusion when just using #derivation and<br>
specify more explicitly that this is a forward link, e.g. using<br>
#derivedEntities or similar.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Kristin<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/2014 10:53 PM, Patrick Dowler wrote:<br>
><br>
> Yes, I had missed out on the provenance related terms. I like the idea<br>
> of having the generic top-level term(s) now and can add specifics later.<br>
><br>
> Normally, we think about having a link from a product back to the input,<br>
> but it is equally valid and potentially more interesting to provide a<br>
> link to a (better) derived product.<br>
><br>
> In that light,<br>
><br>
> #derivation describes a forward link to a product aka "is a #derivation<br>
> from #this" +1<br>
><br>
> It's kind of a "you might be interested in this thing over here..." :-)<br>
><br>
> For the backward link to "inputs" I find #predecessor pretty vague as<br>
> there are many sorts of sequences, not just provenance... predecessor<br>
> also implies that the "original" has been replaced or made obsolete...<br>
> something less specific than #input would probably be good. #precursor<br>
> and #progenitor are ok, but a bit fancy sounding and I'm tired of going<br>
> around thesaurus circle... anyone have a better word for this?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 21/10/14 03:50 AM, Markus Demleitner wrote:<br>
>> Let me propose #derivation as a top-level label for the merged-order<br>
>> file in the split-order datalink. I can't see myself liking<br>
>> #predecessor or #ancestor for the files some reduced data set is<br>
>> derived from, so better ideas are solicited.<br>
>><br>
>> Having #predecessor and #derivation (or whatever) would, I'd argue,<br>
>> do for now. Further details would be up to a proper provenance data<br>
>> model or actual software using those wonders.<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
</div></div>-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
| Dr. Kristin Riebe<br>
| eScience & GAVO<br>
|<br>
| Email: <a href="mailto:kriebe@aip.de">kriebe@aip.de</a><br>
| Phone: <a href="tel:%2B49%20331%207499-377" value="+493317499377">+49 331 7499-377</a><br>
| Room: B6/25<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
| Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)<br>
| An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482 Potsdam<br>
| Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Matthias Steinmetz, Dr. Ulrich Müller<br>
|<br>
| Stiftungsverzeichnis Brandenburg: 26 742-00/7026<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>