W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-396: Rename "wasRevisionOf" to "revisedFrom"? [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:59:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrmh1pvDT0uCVqS+Y3h0tsMQV0omZfJzUV6+f43pLzEUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hmm... wasRevisedFrom to me has two much overlap with wasDerivedFrom
and may lead to confusion.

I think wasRevisionOf makes the versioning clearer.


Paul

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> So, was "wasRevisedFrom" a no brainer acceptance?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps "wasRevisedFrom" to suit the was* naming convention.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-396: Rename "wasRevisionOf" to "revisedFrom"? [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/396
>>>
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> DM editors,
>>>
>>> Could wasRevisionOf be renamed to "revisedFrom" ?
>>>
>>> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more closely.
>>>
>>> The Involvement "Revision" (and qualfiedRevision) could remain the same.
>>>
>>> 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
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:00:19 UTC

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