Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]

hadPrimarySource is much clearer. Anyone who has paid attention in history
class (at least in the US) should be familiar with the idea of primary
sources, so I think it's probably the most useful term.

Jim

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi TIm,
>
> I think i'm bending your way. If other's think primary source is more
> intelligible then I'm happy to change this.
> I think Luc also finally "got' this relation when I pointed him to the
> wiki page so maybe that says something as well.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu