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 13:33:53 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ef5826774a57abab8bfe38eddd1a9107o55DXv08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FCF4E31.3010305@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sorry, guys, please give me a definition/text/examples for this, I have 
been trying for six months ...

I thought we wanted to keep a subtype of derivation, Tim, but you seem 
also to introduce a type of entity.
I find this is becoming too heavy.

Luc

On 06/06/2012 01:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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 
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#concept-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 
>> <mailto: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 <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+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 <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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 
>>> <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 12:34:36 UTC

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