RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

Agreed. In my mind a Collection is primarily that, like a group of people,
a box of candies, a list of known bugs.

A blog post is primarily a Publication, Document, Web page. It does have
constituent parts like paragraphs, pictures, links, but I would find it
unnatural to make the post itself a Collection as those are distinct facets
I would describe with different attributes or properties (possibly to inner
collections, say for ordering paragraphs).

However, a blog itself might be a collection, as a simple blog is primarily
just a list of blog posts.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
On 20 Feb 2013 11:18, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hello Stian,
>
>  I'm not sure it's actually wrong to model a blog post as a collection,
> and if I had to model the relation in my own application (as opposed to
> needing intuitive examples for the primer), I would probably do so. From
> what I had understood from the DM, a PROV collection is an entity we want
> to model as composite and whose components may change over time. The
> distinction with a Dublin Core resource with parts seems to be that PROV
> makes it easier to describe the sequence of changes, i.e. starting with
> an empty collection and changing membership from one specialized version of
> the collection to the next. I would even consider using prov:Dictionary, as
> this would then allow me to specify how the blog post and quote were
> related.
>
>  The fact that we are unsure or disagree about the scope of use of
> prov:Collection might suggest that its use should be clarified in the
> primer and/or FAQ (unless it is just that I've misunderstood and everyone
> else in the WG thinks it's clear).
>
>  thanks,
> Simon
>
>      Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
>     Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance
> Model:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
>          ------------------------------
> *From:* stian@mygrid.org.uk [stian@mygrid.org.uk] on behalf of Stian
> Soiland-Reyes [soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 20 February 2013 10:29
> *To:* Miles, Simon
> *Cc:* Timothy Lebo; public-prov-wg@w3.org; pgroth@gmail.com
> *Subject:* RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
>   Agree that hadMember would not be good, making a blog post a collection
> is quite confusing,  if not wrong.
>
> If we need to say something, we should just relate them with
> dcterms:hasPart, as we (perhaps sadly)
> decided to not cover entity partOf entity in PROV.
>
> However I think for the primer we are fine unless someone outside asks for
> that relation.
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> myGrid team, University of Manchester
> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work
> On 20 Feb 2013 00:02, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Stian,
>>
>> Yes, I also thought about expressing the containment relation between the
>> blog post and quote. I noticed that you and Tim used dcterms:hasPart to
>> express this in this mail thread. We also have prov:hadMember, which might
>> be more appropriate, as the fact that the quote is part of the blog entry
>> is a possibly temporary past state (implied in the primer example by the
>> fact that the article it quotes from is updated), which dcterms:hasPart
>> doesn't obviously capture. Also, we recommend dcterms:hasPart for relating
>> PROV activities, whereas these are entities. On the other hand, using
>> prov:hadMember would make the blog entry a prov:Collection, and it is not
>> the most intuitive example of a collection for a primer.
>>
>> In the end, the implications seemed too complicated for a primer,
>> especially as the blog entry entity is not itself used anywhere else in the
>> example, so I left it out. There might be an intuitive, succinct and
>> unambiguous way to introduce it, though, if we thought it useful.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> Dr Simon Miles
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>
>> Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance Model:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: stian@mygrid.org.uk [stian@mygrid.org.uk] on behalf of Stian
>> Soiland-Reyes [soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 19 February 2013 23:29
>> To: Miles, Simon
>> Cc: pgroth@gmail.com; Timothy Lebo; public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG
>> Subject: Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>>
>> This reads well in the primer and in your response. The combination of
>> ex:quoteInBlogEntry and prov:value here makes it quite obvious.  If we
>> want to expand it more we could use html blockquote, id and RDFa
>> argument.
>>
>> An open question could be how we know that ex:quoteInBlogEntry is part
>> of ( ex:blogPost ?)  , but as we just skim and don't mention the blog
>> post I think we can get away with the current text. :-)   (It is kind
>> of out of scope of PROV to define such kind of containment or
>> belonging).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > Tim, Paul, Stian, all,
>> >
>> > It is clear that, to resolve the issue discussed below, a "quote in blog
>> > entry" entity needs to be introduced into the primer. I've constructed a
>> > response below, based on your feedback. Please also the revised primer,
>> > start of Section 3.9.
>> >
>> > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
>> >
>> > Does this seem an adequate response to Chuck?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Simon
>> >
>> > ===
>> > After discussion, we agree with you that the PROV primer was still
>> unclear,
>> > or possibly just wrong, in the way it was implying wasQuotedFrom could
>> be
>> > used. As you say, one would not say that "X was quoted from Y" if X was
>> not
>> > a quotation. We still believe the relation itself, as defined in the
>> PROV
>> > specifications, is correct and unambiguous.
>> >
>> > We have revised the primer again following your suggestion of
>> introducing an
>> > entity that is more clearly a quotation, ex:quoteInBlogEntry, and made
>> > explicit the text actually quoted ("Smaller cities have more crime than
>> > larger ones.")
>> >
>> > With regards to wasQuotedFrom itself, we note that "X wasQuotedFrom Y"
>> > implies that X is a quotation, and that this follows the same idea of
>> > quotation as in HTML ("The blockquote element represents a section that
>> is
>> > quoted from another source", HTML5). PROV does not provide a relation
>> "X was
>> > quoted from in Y".
>> >
>> > Please see the revised primer at the link below. The relevant text and
>> > example are at the start of Section 3.9, as before.
>> >
>> > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
>> >
>> > Do you believe this now addresses your concern?
>> > ===
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Paul Groth [pgroth@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 11 February 2013 20:50
>> > To: Timothy Lebo
>> > Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; Miles, Simon; public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG
>> > Subject: Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>> >
>> > Oh just saw that html5 defines blockquote as:
>> >
>> > "The blockquote element represents a section that is quoted from another
>> > source"
>> >
>> > I think prov:wasQuotedFrom fits that definition perfectly.
>> >
>> > cheers
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > P.S. We should write a blog post about how to use prov with html5
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> PROV can cover a lot of things, but I just hope we have not just made
>> >> a kind of "SGML of provenance" in that it allows anything and
>> >> recommends nothing, as then you are still just as confused after
>> >> reading the specs, and as a result everybody would end up using PROV
>> >> differently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there's a risk that if we under specify that many will use it
>> >> differently. But the WG is simply providing the core.
>> >> As long as people are conforming to Activity and Entity, we should be
>> >> okay…
>> >>
>> >> -Tim
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>>