- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:26:47 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 5, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > 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. Yes, that wiki page was very elucidating. I'd love for our concept to reflect that, but I don't think its current treatment is doing that. I'm excited to use this concept now! -Tim > > 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 16:27:22 UTC