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 12:27:44 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|45d46bc22acf6df9eebe92fccfa861b9o55CRl08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FCF3EB0.9050409@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
hasPrimarySource or hadPrimarySource?

Is the definition remaining unchanged beyond s/original/primary/ ?

Luc

On 06/06/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
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 11:28:20 UTC

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