Re: PROV-ISSUE-357 (author-in-quotation): author in definition of quotation [prov-dm]

So "by an agent"?  I have no preference on the matter myself.

--Stephan

On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> And a further point: why 'someone' in this definition? Always a Person? Can't running software perform quotation?
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 14:13, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>