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 17:10:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRq5fnZoNVpsSGUu4nvXdfE57He+OREOPXNedvrgSQeiog@mail.gmail.com>
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

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