W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:54:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRotE8k7U_7smyFuXaXXJzN8Xy5Eod82sA20nU0OXsMVvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same
meaning. I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of
things.

cheers
Paul

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/395
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> DM editors,
>
> Could hadOriginalSource be renamed to "originatedFrom" ?
>
> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more closely, and avoids an exception to PROV-O's "has" naming convention.
>
> Then, perhaps the Involvement "Source" could be renamed "Origin"?
>
> And qualifiedSource would become qualifiedOrigin.
>
> I think that this naming is a little more natural.
>
> (yes, this is phrased in terms of PROV-O, but an issue on DM; probably best product would be mapping prov-dm <->  prov-o...)
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>



-- 
--
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 Tuesday, 5 June 2012 06:55:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC