W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > January 2013

RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:08:05 +0000
To: "Morris, Chuck E (IS)" <chuck.morris@ngc.com>, "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C4016FFE72@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello Chuck,

Thanks for your comment. The Provenance Working Group has discussed this, and prepared a response

The main point is that we think this is just the primer text being misleading rather than the relation name being incorrect. The wasQuotedFrom relation should link a quote to the document it was quoted from. The primer currently can be read as linking something *containing* a quote to the place it was quoted from, which is allowable under "scruffy" use of PROV, but not ideal for illustrating the concept as it doesn't match the relation name, as you indicate. More generally, the working group previously extensively discussed the matter of the relation name, including considering hadQuotationFrom. While no relation name may be perfect, it was agreed wasQuotedFrom matches the intent of the relation and PROV-DM definition better than hadQuotationFrom or other relations.

Full details of the response, and the clarifications we intend to make to the primer, are below

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616

Can you let us know whether that response addresses your comment?

thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
________________________________
From: Morris, Chuck E (IS) [chuck.morris@ngc.com]
Sent: 10 January 2013 18:55
To: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Subject: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

I just looked over the provenance primer.  One thing I noticed is that the wasQuotedFrom relationship is very confusing semantically.  Take the example in the primer where Betty posts a blog entry with a quote from the newspaper article.  The provenance is expressed as (ex:blogEntry prov:wasQuotedFrom ex:article .) But that seems to imply that the blog entry was quoted by the newspaper article instead of the other way around.  I suggest that a better name for the relationship would be prov:hadQuotationFrom.

Chuck Morris
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 17:08:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 17:08:46 GMT