W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2013

RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:52:12 +0000
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C401743EFD@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello all,

Could I receive any objections to the proposed response to Chuck below before the telecon tomorrow? I will send the response unless any objections are received. Thanks to Paul and Stian for their feedback.

thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Automatically Adapting Source Code to Document Provenance
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1397/
________________________________
From: Miles, Simon
Sent: 19 February 2013 18:32
To: pgroth@gmail.com; Timothy Lebo
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG
Subject: RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

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<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk<mailto: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
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 14:52:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 14:52:46 GMT