- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:12:30 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <20202878-4A6B-44B6-B34C-27333F1AFC85@rpi.edu>
On Apr 20, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > I believe the definition is not enforceable/verifiable practically. > > In the spirit of simplification I suggest we allow for self-quotation. The definition should be : > > A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, > by someone who may or may not be its original author. In that case, couldn't we just shorten this to "by someone"? --Stephan > > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 20 Apr 2012, at 13:32, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 20, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >>> I think it's hard to come-up with validity rules. In terms of being >>> from another author... I'm sure people will "quote themselves" but I >>> think that's a perfectly fine breakage of the normal definition of >>> quotation. >> >> +1 >> >> The "other author" can be prov:alternateOf the quoting agent :-) >> You're quoting yourself which was in a different context. >> >> I don't see a need to try to enforce distinctness. >> >> -Tim >> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> Ok, but how can we enforce it? What does it mean to be "other" in a PROV context? >>>> Do we need validity rules? >>>> >>>> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>> University of Southampton >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>> United Kingdom >>>> >>>> On 20 Apr 2012, at 09:06, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Luc, >>>>> >>>>> Err.. I took the definition of quotation directly from the dictionary :-) >>>>> >>>>> So you'd have to argue with them. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-357 (author-in-quotation): author in definition of quotation [prov-dm] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/357 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The definition of Quotation [1] is: >>>>>> >>>>>> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, by someone other than its original author. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we really mean that I wouldn't be entitled to quote myself? If it's the case, what does it mean to be "someone other than the original author"? are alternates OK? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#concept-quotation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 13:13:34 UTC