- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:35:46 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
So, was "wasRevisedFrom" a no brainer acceptance? Thanks, Tim On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Or perhaps "wasRevisedFrom" to suit the was* naming convention. > > -Tim > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-396: Rename "wasRevisionOf" to "revisedFrom"? [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/396 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> DM editors, >> >> Could wasRevisionOf be renamed to "revisedFrom" ? >> >> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more closely. >> >> The Involvement "Revision" (and qualfiedRevision) could remain the same. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 20:36:16 UTC