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 12:26:47 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <77422F75-E891-4FF0-9BAE-9ABD503E65E9@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

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

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