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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-357 (author-in-quotation): author in definition of quotation [prov-dm]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:10:15 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4286680A-9E14-4766-9D2F-0231D096A046@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Apr 20, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> I believe the definition is not enforceable/verifiable practically.
> 
> In the spirit of simplification I suggest we allow for self-quotation.  The definition should be :
> 
> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, 
> by someone who may or may not be its original author.

+1

-Tim


> 
> 
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 13:32, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it's hard to come-up with validity rules. In terms of being
>>> from another author... I'm sure people will "quote themselves" but I
>>> think that's a perfectly fine breakage of the normal definition of
>>> quotation.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> The "other author" can be prov:alternateOf the quoting agent :-)
>> You're quoting yourself which was in a different context.
>> 
>> I don't see a need to try to enforce distinctness.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Ok, but how can we enforce it? What does it mean to be "other" in a PROV context?
>>>> Do we need validity rules?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>> University of Southampton
>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> 
>>>> On 20 Apr 2012, at 09:06, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Luc,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Err.. I took the definition of quotation directly from the dictionary :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you'd have to argue with them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue
>>>>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-357 (author-in-quotation): author in definition of quotation [prov-dm]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/357
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The definition of Quotation [1] is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, by someone other than its original author.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do we really mean that I wouldn't be entitled to quote myself?    If it's the case, what does it mean to be "someone other than the original author"? are alternates OK?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#concept-quotation
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 13:10:57 GMT

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