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: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:34:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpazGUZ8KEhRZpet7yK4CbJ0msbX02N-=cB60+thAnZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I would be happy with that.... I think.

I'll try to think about a new name. But we agree on the concept, which is good.

Thanks
Paul

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Garijo
<dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> 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:wasQuoted>From :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
>
>



-- 
--
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 11:34:36 GMT

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