- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:34:05 +0200
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I would be happy with that.... I think. I'll try to think about a new name. But we agree on the concept, which is good. Thanks Paul On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: > Hi Paul, > yes, it makes sense, thanks for the clarification. > Going back to the original issue (another name for wasQuotedFrom), > I'd like to quote what Stian said in another thread: > >> First Google hit for "was quoted from" is: >> >> "What Shakespearean play was quoted from at the end of the Beatles I >> am the Walrus" >> >> - which is the opposite direction of how we do it. > > > So, as you can see, I'm not the only one that can be confused about the > directionality of the property. > > Maybe "wasAQuoteFrom" is better? > > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2012/4/20 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> >> >> Hi Daniel, All, >> >> Sorry to be late jumping in on this thread. Definitely, wasQuotedFrom >> is modeling what it is intended to model now. Tim's examples are good. >> The main case I'm trying to support is <blockquote> on the web. This >> happens all the time in blogs. They quote from a newspaper and then >> add some commentary. >> >> You often see many blogs (e.g. [1]) that look take a piece of content >> and reuse it from another site. You want to identify that content as >> an entity and link it back to the source ([2]) >> >> :blockquoteX prov:wasQuotedFrom :newspaperArticleY >> >> Another way to read it is blockquoteX is a quote from >> newspaperArticleY but we don't do that because we put everything in >> the past tense. So I would argue for it to stand as is. >> >> Does that make sense? >> Paul >> >> [1] >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/want-lower-tax-rates-hire-a-lobbyist/2012/04/18/gIQA8X3hQT_blog.html >> [2] Note, it's a pain to mine this information from site because the >> blockquote is often not directly after the link that tells you the >> provenance that's why we need some structured data. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Daniel Garijo >> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >> > Hi Tim, >> > I see your point. IMO, if you wanted to separate both the quotation from >> > the >> > rest of the >> > post you could still do it creating a separate entity. Right now we are >> > forcing the user >> > either to do so or to use another relationship. >> > >> > Thanks for the examples. I still find a bit funny that I can use >> > wasQuotedFrom for copying and downloading files >> > and I can't use it for saying that my post actually quoted another >> > post/article. I have just >> > realized that my expanded terms example is not completely right, so I'll >> > have to change it. >> > >> > Since both of my suggestions have been droped, I don't have a better >> > name >> > for the moment. >> > I'll try to think of another one, and if I don't manage to come up with >> > a >> > new one I'll close the issue on monday. >> > >> > However, I would still like to know Paul's point of view on this thread. >> > His >> > "5 simple provenance statements" >> > example was about posts (although no reference to wasQuotedFrom was >> > there). >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > 2012/4/19 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> >> >> >> >> Daniel, >> >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Tim, Luc. >> >> From what I understood, I thought that wasQuotedFrom was way less >> >> restrictive. >> >> For instance, if a blogger writes an opinion and quotes another article >> >> in >> >> a blog post >> >> I would expect him to assert that the post wasQuotedFrom the article: >> >> >> >> :post prov:wasQuotedFrom :article >> >> (Therefore the prov:hadQuoteFrom would make sense, as in your example) >> >> >> >> >> >> Instead, if I understood correctly, we are forcing him to create an >> >> intermediate entity just for the quote >> >> that is used in the publication activity which generated the article. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> I think we see each type of modeling (the "pedantic via direct quote >> >> way" >> >> and the "abbreviated post-to-post way") >> >> >> >> I'm glad that it is clear, so that the WG can decide on which they >> >> want. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can't see how that is scruffy provenance >> >> (wasn't it supposed to be a shortcut??): >> >> >> >> :quote a prov:Entity; >> >> prov:wasQuoted>From :article. >> >> >> >> :publActivity a prov:Activity; >> >> prov:used :quote; >> >> prov:generated :post. >> >> >> >> >> >> You can omit the activity and use a derivedFrom like I did in my >> >> example. >> >> >> >> :post prov:wasDerivedFrom :quote . >> >> >> >> >> >> :post a prov:Entity; >> >> prov:wasGeneratedBy :publActivity. >> >> >> >> Since it was a kind of derivation, I assumed that if you added >> >> additional >> >> stuff to the entity that is repeating >> >> some of all of the other entity it would be a quotation… >> >> >> >> >> >> If we define it like this, how do we distinguish which part of the >> >> entity >> >> is quoted and which part of the entity is original? >> >> (pedantic, proper hat is clearly on here) >> >> >> >> Appart from the notion of retweeting, then I don't find the shortcut >> >> very >> >> useful, to tell you the truth. >> >> >> >> >> >> If you don't want the granularity, then use wasQuotedFrom's super >> >> properties: wasDerivedFrom or tracedTo. They give you the abstraction >> >> you >> >> want, without the details you aren't concerned about. >> >> >> >> >> >> Downloading a file is a very common wasQuotedFrom. >> >> >> >> :myFile >> >> a foaf:Document, prov:Entity; >> >> prov:atLocation <file:///Users/me/files/working.html>; >> >> prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts>; >> >> :size "45"^^:kilobytes; >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Any sort of copy-paste operation is naturally modeled with >> >> wasQuotedFrom: >> >> >> >> :copy >> >> a prov:Activity; >> >> prov:wasAssociatedWith :tlebo; >> >> prov:generated :clipboard_contents; >> >> . >> >> >> >> :tlebo >> >> a foaf:Account; >> >> prov:atLocation :tim_laptop; >> >> . >> >> >> >> :clipboard_contents >> >> a prov:Entity; >> >> prov:value "Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM)"; >> >> prov:wasQuotedFrom :page; >> >> prov:wasInvalidatedBy :the_next_copy_operation; >> >> . >> >> >> >> :page >> >> a prov:Entity; >> >> dcterms;date "2012-04-13"; >> >> prov:specializationOf >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts>; >> >> . >> >> >> >> :tech_report >> >> a prov:Entity, :TechReport; >> >> prov:used :clipboard_contents; >> >> prov:wasAttributedTo >> >> <http://data.semanticweb.org/person/timothy-lebo>; >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> -Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> People >> >> use to comment what they are quoting, IMO. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/4/19 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Luc, >> >>> hmmm and what about my other suggestion, "hadQuoteFrom" ? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Daniel, >> >>> >> >>> I'm not in favor of changing it. >> >>> >> >>> I think your suggestion of hadQuoteFrom changes the meaning of the >> >>> definition, where the quote is not THE thing taken from the original >> >>> source, >> >>> but CONTAINS something taken from the original source (and thus a >> >>> subsequent >> >>> derivation). >> >>> >> >>> e.g. >> >>> >> >>> :composite_tweet >> >>> a :Tweet; >> >>> prov:value "I have always loved the #blah. Like @Abe said, "Four >> >>> score >> >>> and seven years ago"; >> >>> daniel:hadQuoteFrom >> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address>; >> >>> # This is not the meaning of the current definition "the repeat of >> >>> (some >> >>> or all of) an entity.." >> >>> prov:wasAttributedTo twitter:timrdf, >> >>> >> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>; >> >>> prov:qualifiedAttribution [ >> >>> a prov:Attribution; >> >>> prov:agent <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>; >> >>> prov:hadRole "contributor", "quoted"; >> >>> ] >> >>> prov:qualifiedAttribution [ >> >>> a prov:Attribution; >> >>> prov:agent twitter:timrdf; >> >>> prov:hadRole "composer", "quoter"; >> >>> ] >> >>> prov:wasDerivedFrom :actual_phrase; ## This derivation shows the >> >>> distinction between the meaning of what you propose and how it is >> >>> currently >> >>> defined. >> >>> ] >> >>> >> >>> is NOT the same as >> >>> >> >>> :actual_phrase >> >>> a :Phrase; >> >>> prov:value "Four score and seven years ago"; >> >>> prov:wasQuotedFrom >> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address>; >> >>> prov:wasAttributedTo twitter:timrdf; >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address> >> >>> a frbr:Work; >> >>> prov:wasAttributedTo <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Abraham_Lincoln>; >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address> >> >>> a foaf:Document; >> >>> prov:specializationOf >> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gettysburg_Address>; >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -Tim >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Daniel >> >>> >> >>> 2012/4/19 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> >>>> >> >>>> Daniel, >> >>>> We started with wasQuoteOf >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#quotation >> >>>> But moved away because not clear. >> >>>> >> >>>> Luc >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >> >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >> >>>> University of Southampton >> >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> >>>> United Kingdom >> >>>> >> >>>> On 19 Apr 2012, at 17:39, "Daniel Garijo" >> >>>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Luc, >> >>>> the definition on DM is very clear to me. >> >>>> >> >>>> What makes me feel a bit unconfortable is that while I can understand >> >>>> what is on the domain >> >>>> and what is on the range on each of the other properties, for this >> >>>> one I >> >>>> think it is a bit confusing. >> >>>> (When I say domain and range, I refer to what is being quoted >> >>>> (original) >> >>>> and what is the quote). >> >>>> >> >>>> I have asked 3 colleagues in my lab to tell me what did they think >> >>>> they >> >>>> were the range and the domain >> >>>> of the property with an example, (without looking at the definition >> >>>> of >> >>>> the DM). One of them agreed with the DM, >> >>>> another one guessed wrong and the last one encouraged me to change >> >>>> the >> >>>> naming because "it made >> >>>> no much sense" to him. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm not sure if users that assert scruffy provenance will come to the >> >>>> DM >> >>>> to read all the definitions, >> >>>> and that is why to make sure this kind of things are very clear for >> >>>> everyone. Thus, I don't propose >> >>>> to change the definitions, I just suggest to rename "wasQuotedFrom" >> >>>> to >> >>>> either: >> >>>> "wasQuoteOf" or "hadQuoteFrom". >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Daniel >> >>>> >> >>>> 2012/4/19 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Daniel, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This is the current definition of quotation. Is there still a >> >>>>> concern >> >>>>> with it? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> Luc >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 4.3.3 Quotation >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as >> >>>>> text >> >>>>> or image, by someone other than its original author. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Quotation is a particular case of derivation in which entity e2 is >> >>>>> derived from an original entity e1 by copying, or "quoting", some or >> >>>>> all of >> >>>>> it. A quotation relation, written >> >>>>> wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) in >> >>>>> PROV-N, has: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> id: an optional identifier for the relation; >> >>>>> quote: an identifier (e2) for the entity that represents the quote >> >>>>> (the >> >>>>> partial copy); >> >>>>> original: an identifier (e1) for the original entity being quoted; >> >>>>> quoterAgent: an optional identifier (ag2) for the agent who performs >> >>>>> the quote; >> >>>>> originalAgent: an optional identifier (ag1) for the agent to whom >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> original entity is attributed; >> >>>>> attributes: an optional set (attrs) of attribute-value pairs >> >>>>> representing additional information about this relation. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-352 (rename-WasQuotedFrom): A better name for >> >>>>>> wasQuotedFrom >> >>>>>> [prov-dm] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/352 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Raised by: Daniel Garijo >> >>>>>> On product: prov-dm >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Currently, the DM says: >> >>>>>> A quotation record, written wasQuotedFrom(e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) in >> >>>>>> PROV-ASN, contains: >> >>>>>> quote: an identifier e2, identifying an entity record that >> >>>>>> represents the quote; >> >>>>>> quoted: an identifier e1, identifying an entity record >> >>>>>> representing what is being quoted; >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> However, if we say that e2 wasQuotedFrom e1 it may look like entity >> >>>>>> e1 >> >>>>>> is the one quoting e2 (since we are saying that e2 was quoted). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I think it would be more clear if we rename the property with e2 >> >>>>>> wasQuoteOf e1, or e2 hadQuoteFrom e1. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thoughts? >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>> Daniel >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Professor Luc Moreau >> >>>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> >>>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> >>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> >>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> 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 >> VU University Amsterdam > > -- -- 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 VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 11:34:36 UTC