RE: PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation

Hi Daniel, Tim,


Sorry for not picking this up.


I just find that Quotation sounds like it's an Entity (and actually
Revision and Source do as well).  I don't have any better suggestion for
Quotation in isolation, I think it would need a change of naming
convention for involvements, e.g. have something like
QuotationInvolvement (but perhaps it was like that previously?).
Another alternative is to use the convention of naming the involvements
similarly to the direct properties, e.g. WasQuotedBy.  Something like
that was used in OPMO, and at least makes the correspondences obvious.


However, I think this is a minor quibble and I don't wish to upset
something that was otherwise settled, so I don't mind if the issue is


Stephen Cresswell

Tel:  +44 (0) 01603 69 6926

Web: <> 



From: [] On Behalf Of Daniel
Sent: 08 April 2012 20:07
To: Timothy Lebo
Cc: Provenance Working Group
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation


Hi Stephen,
this issue is now OPEN. As Tim already asked, do you have a better
suggestion for "Quotation"?


2012/3/28 Timothy Lebo <>


Thanks for pointing this out.

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker

> PROV-ISSUE-320 (dgarijo): Change the name of prov:Quotation
> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
> On product:
> I wrongly thought prov:Quotation was a kind of
> Entity rather than a kind of EntityInvolvement, and I correspondingly
> misread hadQuoterAgent, hadQuotedAgent property as relating an Entity
> an Agent and thought that it ought to be a specialization of
> wasAttributedTo.  The way it's actually modeled does match PROV-DM,

Does this continue to be the case? If so, could you elaborate the
mismatch that you see?

> so
> there's nothing wrong here, but it might be worth considering renaming
> prov:Quotation to help avoid the tempting misreading.

prov:Quote was the entity in previous versions of prov-o.
prov:Quotation is named similarly to Generation and a few others.

Do you have a suggestion for it's name?
If so, I suggest raising an issue on DM as well:



This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG

Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 12:00:39 UTC