- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:13:30 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > This is the same intent as the google definition of original source in > my reading of their post. I would consider primary source but think > original source has some history of usage on the web already. Where on the web is "original source" used? Blogging? Anywhere else? I'm not a blogger, and I haven't seen "original source". Thanks, Tim > > cheers > Paul > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >> On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >>> Yeah, orginalsource had the meaning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >> >> Oh, did we shift from the meaning taken from that Google Blog about journalism ? >> (which, I can't find in any public draft, so I guess "yes"…) >> >> I like the description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source __much__ better, >> I had no idea that that was the intent of hadOriginalSource. >> >> Since wikipedia choose the name "primary", perhaps we should too. >> I would be in favor of renaming: >> >> hadOriginalSource -> hadPrimarySource >> >> Now that I understand the concept, I'd rather this than the "originatedFrom", which is drastically different. >> >>> >>> To me a "big change" now is changing stuff that has been in the spec >>> in a number of drafts. I won't really argue hard but I want to be >>> convinced that this is worth it. >> >> That's reasonable. But perhaps it indicates that the bigger problems are out of the way now :-) >> >> -Tim >> >> >> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same >>>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that they are pretty close in meaning, and one follows the naming style more appropriately. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of >>>>> things. >>>> >>>> >>>> How do you measure "big"? >>>> >>>> -Tim >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >>>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/395 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>> >>>>>> DM editors, >>>>>> >>>>>> Could hadOriginalSource be renamed to "originatedFrom" ? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more closely, and avoids an exception to PROV-O's "has" naming convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, perhaps the Involvement "Source" could be renamed "Origin"? >>>>>> >>>>>> And qualifiedSource would become qualifiedOrigin. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that this naming is a little more natural. >>>>>> >>>>>> (yes, this is phrased in terms of PROV-O, but an issue on DM; probably best product would be mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o...) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > -- > 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 Tuesday, 5 June 2012 14:14:11 UTC