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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-352 (rename-WasQuotedFrom): A better name for wasQuotedFrom [prov-dm]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:40:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcQ-7u+Kx0pL_0GW84NY0y0D-4Be90KQQzxv21uCvbbrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian,
thanks for the new suggestions.
wasQuoteFrom is almost the same as what we currently have, and if
wasAQuoteFrom was
dropped I think that this will not gain the support once again because the
same argument
can be applied (if it was a quote, what it is now?). QuoteFrom doesn't
follow the naming
conventions we have agreed on, although it is an interesting proposal: a
quote is allways
a quote, why do we have to talk about it in past tense?

Trying to answer that question, I think that what we want to track is the
action of quoting
something by someone at an instant. That is what provenance is about,
right? And that
is why all the our properties use verbs in the past tense, to capture
things that happened.

I have looked at some synonims like recite, excerpt (proposed by Graham),
extract, cite, repeat,
but they don't adapt to the definition of wasQuotedFrom in DM. Hence, I'm
out of ideas,
and I'll close the issue on thursday (@Luc: we don't need to have it on the
agenda if there
is no new proposal).

Thanks for the discussion,
Daniel.
PS: Tim's analogy with "taken" is really helpful. Thanks Tim!

2012/5/15 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> > wasQuoteOf: we started with this definition, and moved away because it
> was
> > confusing.
> > Overall, I think it loses clarity (hence my suggestion to move away from
> it
> > months back).
>
> What was the confusion about ':e2 wasQuoteFrom :e1'?
>
> :e2 is a *quote*, even if we don't have a prov:Quote subclass. This
> should make it much clearer than (slightly more grammatically correct,
> but directionally confusing) wasQuotedFrom, because you know that the
> domain has to be the actual quote, not just something that contains
> the quote. The direction is also clear, the quote is :e2 on the left,
> the source and possibly bigger entity is :e1 on the right.
>
>
> > wasAQuoteFrom: there was no consensus because "if it was a quote, then
> what
> > is it now"?
>
> OK, what about 'quoteFrom' then. No verb - but if you insist we can't
> use past tense on this one, what do we do?
>

>
> The argument 'what is it now' could be applied to the other
> properties, is that thing no longer derived from B? Is it no longer
> generated by X?  Does it no longer have that original source?  We
> don't know what it has 'now' - that is undefined - provenance is about
> the past, and in the past it was a quote from X.
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:40:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:40:46 GMT