- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 07:54:54 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hmm... wasRevisedFrom to me has two much overlap with wasDerivedFrom > and may lead to confusion. Too much overlap? They're sub properties! That's the very reason for the proposed new name. -Tim > > 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 11:55:30 UTC