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 09:03:12 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2A5D973A-7C09-4242-949D-D2B16B8D3080@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Yeah, orginalsource had the meaning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Oh, did we shift from the meaning taken from that Google Blog about journalism ?
(which, I can't find in any public draft, so I guess "yes")

I like the description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source     __much__ better, 
I had no idea that that was the intent of hadOriginalSource.

Since wikipedia choose the name "primary", perhaps we should too.
I would be in favor of renaming:

      hadOriginalSource -> hadPrimarySource

Now that I understand the concept, I'd rather this than the "originatedFrom", which is drastically different.

> 
> To me a "big change" now is changing stuff that has been in the spec
> in a number of drafts. I won't really argue hard but I want to be
> convinced that this is worth it.

That's reasonable. But perhaps it indicates that the bigger problems are out of the way now :-)

-Tim



> 
> Paul
> 
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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 13:06:14 UTC

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