- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:27:44 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
hasPrimarySource or hadPrimarySource? Is the definition remaining unchanged beyond s/original/primary/ ? Luc On 06/06/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > I believe that the consensus is to rename it to PrimarySource. > > hasPrimarySource > > Is that correct, Jim, Tim. > > Thanks > Paul > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Paul, Tim, Jim, all, >> >> What's the consensus on this? What definition and name do you want to >> adopt for this >> relation? >> >> Luc >> >> On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >>> Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >> > > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:28:20 UTC