- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:19:02 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusker@gmail.com>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|cc477df7a1ccb1815766a71eb96faa7co55DJ608L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FCF4AB6>
Hi all, Changes implemented. I am closing this issue, pending your review. Luc On 06/06/2012 12:56 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > > Yes, hadPrimarySource. > > On Jun 6, 2012 7:26 AM, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl > <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> 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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@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 <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > >>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor > >>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group > >>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section > >>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science > >>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > >>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > >>>>>>>> Assistant Professor > >>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group > >>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section > >>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science > >>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > >>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > >>>>>> Assistant Professor > >>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group > >>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section > >>>>>> Department of Computer Science > >>>>>> VU University Amsterdam > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > >>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > >>>> 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 <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | > (203) 785-6330 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330> > >>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > >>> > >>> PhD Student > >>> Tetherless World Constellation > >>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > >>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu> > >>> http://tw.rpi.edu > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Professor Luc Moreau > > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: > l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > Assistant Professor > Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group > Artificial Intelligence Section > Department of Computer Science > VU University Amsterdam > -- 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 12:19:40 UTC