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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:41:30 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F8C7A18-8F19-44A6-9214-D069E57D9C84@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same
> meaning.


I think that they are pretty close in meaning, and one follows the naming style more appropriately.


> I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of
> things.


How do you measure "big"?

-Tim


> 
> 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 12:42:03 UTC

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