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: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:13:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcyZ9MTszh=596KyQ_YCj3XFHDe_iFE-SA5pXC3wf0DJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 as well.

Daniel

2012/4/20 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

>
> 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 13:14:09 GMT

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