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

Re: FW: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:57:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpriExc4ouhWH3Xoqy6-pxGB4LQ9Z+vK3wC=k-9vJqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1

Paul


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hello WG,
>
>  I think Chuck suggests a good minor change to phrasing regarding
> quotation in the primer. As Tim has pointed out to me, it could tweaked to
> be even clearer. I propose that the following be included in the primer:
>
>  "Another kind of derivation is to say that one entity, a quotation, was
> quoted from another entity, commonly a document."
>
>  Given that this is minor and apparently uncontroversial, and we have to
> stage the next draft by Tuesday, I suggest I reply to Chuck in around 4
> hours from now (1730 UK time) agreeing to his suggestion and making the
> change. If this is problematic, please raise an objection in this period.
>
>  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:* Morris, Chuck E (IS) [chuck.morris@ngc.com]
> *Sent:* 28 February 2013 20:20
>
> *To:* Miles, Simon; public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
>   Thanks Simon,
>
>
>
> The primer looks much better now.  The example looks good.  However, I
> think that the last sentence in the second paragraph under the “Derivation
> and Revision” heading  is still wrong.  It reads “Another specialized kind
> of derivation is to say that one entity, commonly a document, quotes from
> another.”  I suggest changing it to “Another specialized kind of derivation
> is to say that one entity, a quotation , was quoted from another entity,
> commonly a document.”
>
>
>
> The relation as defined in the specification may be clear.  I just don’t
> think most people will understand the relationship correctly from its name
> if they haven’t already  looked it up in the specification.  Of course, I
> recognize that my opinion may not be the prevailing one.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Miles, Simon [mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:11 AM
> *To:* Morris, Chuck E (IS); public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* EXT :RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
>
>
> Hello Chuck,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the delay in responding to your comments on the W3C PROV
> specifications and primer.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> 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:* Morris, Chuck E (IS) [chuck.morris@ngc.com]
> *Sent:* 07 February 2013 19:18
> *To:* Miles, Simon; public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
> Thanks for the response.  I can see an attempt to deal with the issue, but
> I’m not convinced that it has been resolved satisfactorily.  I still think
> there is a fundamental problem with the wasQuotedFrom relationship name.  I
> recognize that the pattern “X was quoted from Y” is used in colloquial
> language to attribute quotations, but only when it is clear that X is a
> quotation.  No one would say “X was quoted from Y” if X is not a quotation,
> but they may well say “X was quoted from in Y”, meaning Y contains a quote
> that came from X.  If you see “X wasQuotedFrom Y” and you do not know that
> X is a quotation, I think it is more natural to assume that it means “X was
> quoted from [in] Y” than to assume that it means “X [is a quote that] was
> quoted from Y”.  That is especially true in scruffy usage when X is not a
> quote, but merely contains a quote.
>
> I see from the discussion that quoted, wasQuoteOf, hadQuoteFrom,
> wasAQuoteFrom, isAQuoteFrom, and isQuoteFrom were all rejected.  How about
> just quoteFrom?  That isn’t past tense, but it seems to me that it would be
> consistent with some of the other relationship names like alternateOf and
> specializationOf.
>
> And perhaps it would also be helpful to either change ex:blogEntry in the
> primer to ex:quoteInBlog to avoid scruffy usage, or add text to point out
> that the usage of the relationship is an example of scruffy usage.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Miles, Simon [mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08 AM
> *To:* Morris, Chuck E (IS); public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* EXT :RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
>
>
> Hello Chuck,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comment. The Provenance Working Group has discussed this,
> and prepared a response
>
>
>
> The main point is that we think this is just the primer text being
> misleading rather than the relation name being incorrect. The wasQuotedFrom
> relation should link a quote to the document it was quoted from. The primer
> currently can be read as linking something *containing* a quote to the
> place it was quoted from, which is allowable under "scruffy" use of PROV,
> but not ideal for illustrating the concept as it doesn't match the relation
> name, as you indicate. More generally, the working group previously
> extensively discussed the matter of the relation name, including
> considering hadQuotationFrom. While no relation name may be perfect, it was
> agreed wasQuotedFrom matches the intent of the relation and PROV-DM
> definition better than hadQuotation>From or other relations.
>
>
>
> Full details of the response, and the clarifications we intend to make to
> the primer, are below
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616
>
>
>
> Can you let us know whether that response addresses your comment?
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
>
>
> Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
>
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
>          ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Morris, Chuck E (IS) [chuck.morris@ngc.com]
> *Sent:* 10 January 2013 18:55
> *To:* public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
> I just looked over the provenance primer.  One thing I noticed is that the
> wasQuotedFrom relationship is very confusing semantically.  Take the
> example in the primer where Betty posts a blog entry with a quote from the
> newspaper article.  The provenance is expressed as (ex:blogEntry
> prov:wasQuotedFrom ex:article .) But that seems to imply that the blog
> entry was quoted by the newspaper article instead of the other way around.
> I suggest that a better name for the relationship would be
> prov:hadQuotationFrom.
>
>
>
> Chuck Morris
>
>
>



-- 
--
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
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 13:58:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:23 UTC