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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-352 (rename-WasQuotedFrom): A better name for wasQuotedFrom [prov-dm]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:26:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeDCxKaiss-cChyFRbTwgVDZ=JdqaYvFM52U3XXiWNpoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,
yes, it makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
Going back to the original issue (another name for wasQuotedFrom),
I'd like to quote what Stian said in another thread:

First Google hit for "was quoted from" is:
>
> "What Shakespearean play was quoted from at the end of the Beatles I
> am the Walrus"
>
> - which is the opposite direction of how we do it.
>

 So, as you can see, I'm not the only one that can be confused about the
directionality of the property.

Maybe "wasAQuoteFrom" is better?

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/4/20 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

> Hi Daniel, All,
>
> Sorry to be late jumping in on this thread. Definitely, wasQuotedFrom
> is modeling what it is intended to model now. Tim's examples are good.
> The main case I'm trying to support is <blockquote> on the web. This
> happens all the time in blogs. They quote from a newspaper and then
> add some commentary.
>
> You often see many blogs (e.g. [1]) that look take a piece of content
> and reuse it from another site. You want to identify that content as
> an entity and link it back to the source ([2])
>
> :blockquoteX prov:wasQuotedFrom :newspaperArticleY
>
> Another way to read it is blockquoteX is a quote from
> newspaperArticleY but we don't do that because we put everything in
> the past tense. So I would argue for it to stand as is.
>
> Does that make sense?
> Paul
>
> [1]
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/want-lower-tax-rates-hire-a-lobbyist/2012/04/18/gIQA8X3hQT_blog.html
> [2] Note, it's a pain to mine this information from site because the
> blockquote is often not directly after the link that tells you the
> provenance that's why we need some structured data.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Daniel Garijo
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> > I see your point. IMO, if you wanted to separate both the quotation from
> the
> > rest of the
> > post you could still do it creating a separate entity. Right now we are
> > forcing the user
> > either to do so or to use another relationship.
> >
> > Thanks for the examples. I still find a bit funny that I can use
> > wasQuotedFrom  for copying and downloading files
> > and I can't use it for saying that my post actually quoted another
> > post/article. I have just
> > realized that my expanded terms example is not completely right, so I'll
> > have to change it.
> >
> > Since both of my suggestions have been droped, I don't have a better name
> > for the moment.
> > I'll try to think of another one, and if I don't manage to come up with a
> > new one I'll close the issue on monday.
> >
> > However, I would still like to know Paul's point of view on this thread.
> His
> > "5 simple provenance statements"
> > example was about posts (although no reference to wasQuotedFrom was
> there).
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > 2012/4/19 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> >>
> >> Daniel,
> >>
> >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Tim, Luc.
> >> From what I understood, I thought that wasQuotedFrom was way less
> >> restrictive.
> >> For instance, if a blogger writes an opinion and quotes another article
> in
> >> a blog post
> >> I would expect him to assert that the post wasQuotedFrom the article:
> >>
> >> :post prov:wasQuotedFrom :article
> >> (Therefore the prov:hadQuoteFrom would make sense, as in your example)
> >>
> >>
> >> Instead, if I understood correctly, we are forcing him to create an
> >> intermediate entity just for the quote
> >> that is used in the publication activity which generated the article.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> I think we see each type of modeling (the "pedantic via direct quote
> way"
> >> and the "abbreviated post-to-post way")
> >>
> >> I'm glad that it is clear, so that the WG can decide on which they want.
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't see how that is scruffy provenance
> >> (wasn't it supposed to be a shortcut??):
> >>
> >> :quote a prov:Entity;
> >>           prov:wasQuotedFrom :article.
> >>
> >> :publActivity a prov:Activity;
> >>                   prov:used :quote;
> >>                   prov:generated :post.
> >>
> >>
> >> You can omit the activity and use a derivedFrom like I did in my
> example.
> >>
> >> :post prov:wasDerivedFrom :quote .
> >>
> >>
> >> :post a prov:Entity;
> >>         prov:wasGeneratedBy :publActivity.
> >>
> >> Since it was a kind of derivation, I assumed that if you added
> additional
> >> stuff to the entity that is repeating
> >> some of all of the other entity it would be a quotation…
> >>
> >>
> >> If we define it like this, how do we distinguish which part of the
> entity
> >> is quoted and which part of the entity is original?
> >> (pedantic, proper hat is clearly on here)
> >>
> >> Appart from the notion of retweeting, then I don't find the shortcut
> very
> >> useful, to tell you the truth.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you don't want the granularity, then use wasQuotedFrom's super
> >> properties: wasDerivedFrom or tracedTo. They give you the abstraction
> you
> >> want, without the details you aren't concerned about.
> >>
> >>
> >> Downloading a file is a very common wasQuotedFrom.
> >>
> >> :myFile
> >>    a foaf:Document, prov:Entity;
> >>    prov:atLocation <file:///Users/me/files/working.html>;
> >>    prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts>;
> >>    :size "45"^^:kilobytes;
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Any sort of copy-paste operation is naturally modeled with
> wasQuotedFrom:
> >>
> >> :copy
> >>    a prov:Activity;
> >>    prov:wasAssociatedWith :tlebo;
> >>    prov:generated :clipboard_contents;
> >> .
> >>
> >> :tlebo
> >> a foaf:Account;
> >>       prov:atLocation :tim_laptop;
> >> .
> >>
> >> :clipboard_contents
> >>    a prov:Entity;
> >>    prov:value "Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM)";
> >>    prov:wasQuotedFrom :page;
> >>    prov:wasInvalidatedBy :the_next_copy_operation;
> >> .
> >>
> >> :page
> >>     a prov:Entity;
> >>     dcterms;date "2012-04-13";
> >>     prov:specializationOf
> >> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts>;
> >> .
> >>
> >> :tech_report
> >>    a prov:Entity, :TechReport;
> >>     prov:used :clipboard_contents;
> >>    prov:wasAttributedTo <
> http://data.semanticweb.org/person/timothy-lebo>;
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >> -Tim
> >>
> >>
> >> People
> >> use to comment what they are quoting, IMO.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/4/19 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Luc,
> >>> hmmm and what about my other suggestion, "hadQuoteFrom" ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> I'm not in favor of changing it.
> >>>
> >>> I think your suggestion of hadQuoteFrom changes the meaning of the
> >>> definition, where the quote is not THE thing taken from the original
> source,
> >>> but CONTAINS something taken from the original source (and thus a
> subsequent
> >>> derivation).
> >>>
> >>> e.g.
> >>>
> >>> :composite_tweet
> >>>    a :Tweet;
> >>>    prov:value "I have always loved the #blah. Like @Abe said, "Four
> score
> >>> and seven years ago";
> >>>    daniel:hadQuoteFrom <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address
> >;
> >>>   # This is not the meaning of the current definition "the repeat of
> (some
> >>> or all of) an entity.."
> >>>    prov:wasAttributedTo twitter:timrdf,
> >>>
> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>;
> >>>    prov:qualifiedAttribution [
> >>>        a prov:Attribution;
> >>> prov:agent <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>;
> >>>         prov:hadRole "contributor", "quoted";
> >>>    ]
> >>>    prov:qualifiedAttribution [
> >>>        a prov:Attribution;
> >>> prov:agent twitter:timrdf;
> >>>         prov:hadRole "composer", "quoter";
> >>>    ]
> >>>    prov:wasDerivedFrom :actual_phrase;  ## This derivation shows the
> >>> distinction between the meaning of what you propose and how it is
> currently
> >>> defined.
> >>> ]
> >>>
> >>> is NOT the same as
> >>>
> >>> :actual_phrase
> >>>    a :Phrase;
> >>>    prov:value "Four score and seven years ago";
> >>>    prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address
> >;
> >>>    prov:wasAttributedTo twitter:timrdf;
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address>
> >>>    a frbr:Work;
> >>>    prov:wasAttributedTo <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>;
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address>
> >>>    a foaf:Document;
> >>>    prov:specializationOf
> >>>  <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address>;
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>> 2012/4/19 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >>>>
> >>>> Daniel,
> >>>> We started with wasQuoteOf
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#quotation
> >>>> But moved away because not clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Luc
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau
> >>>> Electronics and Computer Science
> >>>> University of Southampton
> >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> >>>> United Kingdom
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 Apr 2012, at 17:39, "Daniel Garijo"
> >>>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Luc,
> >>>> the definition on DM is very clear to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> What makes me feel a bit unconfortable is that while I can understand
> >>>> what is on the domain
> >>>> and what is on the range on each of the other properties, for this
> one I
> >>>> think it is a bit confusing.
> >>>> (When I say domain and range, I refer to what is being quoted
> (original)
> >>>> and what is the quote).
> >>>>
> >>>> I have asked 3 colleagues in my lab to tell me what did they think
> they
> >>>> were the range and the domain
> >>>> of the property with an example, (without looking at the definition of
> >>>> the DM). One of them agreed with the DM,
> >>>> another one guessed wrong and the last one encouraged me to change the
> >>>> naming because "it made
> >>>> no much sense" to him.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure if users that assert scruffy provenance will come to the
> DM
> >>>> to read all the definitions,
> >>>> and that is why to make sure this kind of things are very clear for
> >>>> everyone. Thus, I don't propose
> >>>> to change the definitions, I just suggest to rename "wasQuotedFrom" to
> >>>> either:
> >>>> "wasQuoteOf" or "hadQuoteFrom".
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>>
> >>>> 2012/4/19 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the current definition of quotation. Is there still a concern
> >>>>> with it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Luc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4.3.3 Quotation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text
> >>>>> or image, by someone other than its original author.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quotation is a particular case of derivation in which entity e2 is
> >>>>> derived from an original entity e1 by copying, or "quoting", some or
> all of
> >>>>> it. A quotation relation, written
> wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) in
> >>>>> PROV-N, has:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> id: an optional identifier for the relation;
> >>>>> quote: an identifier (e2) for the entity that represents the quote
> (the
> >>>>> partial copy);
> >>>>> original: an identifier (e1) for the original entity being quoted;
> >>>>> quoterAgent: an optional identifier (ag2) for the agent who performs
> >>>>> the quote;
> >>>>> originalAgent: an optional identifier (ag1) for the agent to whom the
> >>>>> original entity is attributed;
> >>>>> attributes: an optional set (attrs) of attribute-value pairs
> >>>>> representing additional information about this relation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-352 (rename-WasQuotedFrom): A better name for
> wasQuotedFrom
> >>>>>> [prov-dm]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/352
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> >>>>>> On product: prov-dm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Currently, the DM says:
> >>>>>> A quotation record, written wasQuotedFrom(e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) in
> >>>>>> PROV-ASN, contains:
> >>>>>>     quote: an identifier e2, identifying an entity record that
> >>>>>> represents the quote;
> >>>>>>     quoted: an identifier e1, identifying an entity record
> >>>>>> representing what is being quoted;
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, if we say that e2 wasQuotedFrom e1 it may look like entity
> e1
> >>>>>> is the one quoting e2 (since we are saying that e2 was quoted).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think it would be more clear if we rename the property with e2
> >>>>>> wasQuoteOf e1, or e2 hadQuoteFrom e1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Daniel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
> Artificial Intelligence Section
> Department of Computer Science
> VU University Amsterdam
>
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 09:26:50 GMT

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