- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:10:30 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi TIm, I think i'm bending your way. If other's think primary source is more intelligible then I'm happy to change this. I think Luc also finally "got' this relation when I pointed him to the wiki page so maybe that says something as well. cheers Paul On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > >> 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. > > Where on the web is "original source" used? > Blogging? > > Anywhere else? > I'm not a blogger, and I haven't seen "original source". > > Thanks, > Tim > > >> >> 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 >> >> > -- -- 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 15:18:48 UTC