- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:41:30 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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