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: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:25:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrXkyYsvu4w-dRg6+5b5RApO-ctKX2+NXNww6W=uuBwRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I believe that the consensus is to rename it to PrimarySource.

hasPrimarySource

Is that correct, Jim, Tim.

Thanks
Paul

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
>



-- 
--
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 Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:25:46 UTC

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