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 15:06:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrec7mhZnuJmBEmy=hREVQJF=-GziE4oABcYyXjzhV33A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
This is the same intent as the google definition of original source in
my reading of their post. I would consider  primary source but think
original source has some history of usage on the web already.

cheers
Paul

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>



-- 
--
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 14:07:27 UTC

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