W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:58:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0De7BmnR=2XWFkmeaXs+b6iPuB+p7t481JVw=18FMUyhVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cresswell, Stephen" <stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stephen,
we have discussed your suggestions within the prov-o team, and we have
raised
a separate issue against the DM for renaming the wasQuotedFrom relationship.

The suggested renamings are:

   - wasQuoteOf
   - hadQuoteFrom

wasQuotedBy would change the domain and range of the relationship, so we
dropped it.

We haven't added "Involvement" to Quotation, since it had been removed
because it
made the relationship name too long, and if we added it then we would have
to add it
too to all the involvements to be consistent.
I have closed the issue, but feel free to reopen it if you don't agree on
something.
Thanks,
Daniel

2012/4/16 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Stephen,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions for QuotationInvolvement and WasQuotedBy.
>
> I've taken it to the prov-o team to see what they think.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Cresswell, Stephen wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel, Tim,****
> ** **
> Sorry for not picking this up.****
> ** **
> I just find that Quotation sounds like itís an Entity (and actually
> Revision and Source do as well).  I donít have any better suggestion for
> Quotation in isolation, I think it would need a change of naming convention
> for involvements, e.g. have something like QuotationInvolvement (but
> perhaps it was like that previously?).  Another alternative is to use the
> convention of naming the involvements similarly to the direct properties,
> e.g. WasQuotedBy.  Something like that was used in OPMO, and at least makes
> the correspondences obvious.****
> ** **
> However, I think this is a minor quibble and I donít wish to upset
> something that was otherwise settled, so I donít mind if the issue is
> closed.****
> ** **
> Stephen Cresswell****
> Tel:  +44 (0) 01603 69 6926****
> Web:  www.tso.co.uk****
> ** **
> ------------------------------
> *From:* dgarijov@gmail.com [mailto:dgarijov@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
> Garijo
> *Sent:* 08 April 2012 20:07
> *To:* Timothy Lebo
> *Cc:* Provenance Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation
> ****
> ** **
>
> Hi Stephen,
> this issue is now OPEN. As Tim already asked, do you have a better
> suggestion for "Quotation"?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel****
> 2012/3/28 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>****
> Stephen,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.****
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> > PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/320
> >
> > Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
> > On product:
> >
> > I wrongly thought prov:Quotation was a kind of
> > Entity rather than a kind of EntityInvolvement, and I correspondingly
> > misread hadQuoterAgent, hadQuotedAgent property as relating an Entity to
> > an Agent and thought that it ought to be a specialization of
> > wasAttributedTo.  The way it's actually modeled does match PROV-DM,****
> 2)
> Does this continue to be the case? If so, could you elaborate the mismatch
> that you see?****
>
>
>
> > so
> > there's nothing wrong here, but it might be worth considering renaming
> > prov:Quotation to help avoid the tempting misreading.
> >
>
> ****
>
> prov:Quote was the entity in previous versions of prov-o.
> prov:Quotation is named similarly to Generation and a few others.
>
> 1)
> Do you have a suggestion for it's name?
> If so, I suggest raising an issue on DM as well:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-quotation
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ****
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________**
> **
>
>
> ***********************************************************************************************
>
> This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received
> this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and
> delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose,
> distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.
>
>
>
> Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has
> been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does
> not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own
> virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained
> as a result of such material.
>
>
>
> Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing
> through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to
> determine whether the content is business related and compliant with
> company standards.
>
>
> ***********************************************************************************************
>
> The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10
> Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:59:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT