- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:59:49 +0200
- 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