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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-356 (replace-hadquoter): Replace hadQuoter by reusing wasAttributedTo [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:03:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmrfBe=ou5C5Ke-9Yts0HYmXgx4nxAA1UxpUhJfNjnLpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:06, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Part of my concern for your "ambiguity" argument is that you are being imprecise in your choice of quoted entity.

Yes, I think the current wasQuoteOf basically comes with lots of
'scruffy' shortcuts for those imprecise usecases. If I want to say
that a song quotes a Shakespeare play, I might not want to make a new
entity for those particular lines of the play that are quoted (they
could be spread across the script).


> If one has a blogpost with a photo and other components contributed by different agents, and you take something from a paragraph, shouldn't you be identifying the _paragraph_ (and not the entire blogpost) as the quoted entity?

Yes - in the ideal world the entities are all finely tuned. :)


> Then, ALL agents that attributed to that specific quoted paragraph would be the quoted agents (even Paolo, who made it italics), and we could determine this without the extra hadQuoted predicate.

This is a good argument. wasQuotedOf only talks about single agents on
both sides. Why this restriction?

Could you flesh out an example of this with the hadQuoted predicate?


> I'm even more convinced that the hadQuoter predicate should be replaced by wasAttributedTo, since the quote entity is being created during the quotation and can be contextualized appropriately (if any modifications to the quote happen, then it's a new entity with new attributions).

These all depends on the granularity level the asserter uses for the
new entity. Almost any problem can be broken down into more
fine-grained entities - but you now are left with loosely connected
entities which at best can be wasSpecializedOf and wasDerivedFrom each
other.

Perhaps one obvious thing that is missing (except for the more
specific collections) from the PROV model is containment - the blog
post contains both the paragraph and the picture. Perhaps containment
is just a form of wasSpecializedOf?


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 09:04:15 GMT

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