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: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:26:08 -0400
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B1D64AB0-6158-43CB-981D-DEB0E650D7D6@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Luc,

Regarding the name,
Yes, I think we agreed on hadPrimarySource.



Though, looking at the definition at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source :

   A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.
1) A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation that aims to give credit to the source that originated some information. It is recognized that it may be hard to determine which entity constitutes a primary source. This definition is inspired by original-source as defined in http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html.

does not lead me think of what is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

2) A primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.



#1 still gives me this loose bloggy feel, and not the curation feel that I think is important for Primary Sources.

While #2 claims "it's hard to determine", I disagree, #1 is clear that it must have been "created at the time under study".

I suggesting making #2 the definition, and attenuating the emphasis on http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html (by perhaps stating that "in the blogosphere, Primary source is a concern as discussed by googlenewsblog)

-Tim
 

On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:43 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Yes. It remains as such.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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 12:26:49 UTC

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