W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:38 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|3cc06cd36fec909d7439d2427d37440fo55Bng08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FCF35C2.8090404@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Paul, Tim, Jim, all,

What's the consensus on this? What definition and name do you want to 
adopt for this
relation?

Luc

On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well.
>
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>    
>> hadPrimarySource is much clearer. Anyone who has paid attention in history
>> class (at least in the US) should be familiar with the idea of primary
>> sources, so I think it's probably the most useful term.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl>  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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim McCusker
>> Programmer Analyst
>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>> Yale School of Medicine
>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>
>> PhD Student
>> Tetherless World Constellation
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
>> http://tw.rpi.edu
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 10:50:13 UTC

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