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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:33:13 +0000
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2be9fb4191c1d897df6b4393726f5bf1o5AKXH08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|6463648C-2770-41E8-AA08-806B9915BE6A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Dooh, auto spell, Hi Paul, ....

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 11 Jun 2012, at 20:23, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> HimPail,
> Sound good to me.  Tim?
> If ok, i'll insert this in the document.
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 11 Jun 2012, at 19:09, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Luc,
>> 
>> I would like to keep this as a subtype of derivation. Thus, if we
>> constrain it to things I think it would fit the model much better.
>> Suggested revision would be:
>> 
>> A primary source for a topic refers to something produced by agents
>> with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time of
>> the topic's study, without benefit from hindsight.
>> 
>> Because of the directness of primary sources, they "speak for
>> themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of
>> secondary sources. As such, it is important for secondary sources to
>> reference those primary sources from which they were derived, so that
>> their reliability can be investigated.
>> 
>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of
>> secondary materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that
>> the etermination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and
>> should be done according to conventions accepted within the
>> application's domain.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> 
>>> I think it's good, it conveys better the notion.
>>> 
>>> Instead of talking about writer, i suggest we talk about people (actually,
>>> they may have not
>>> written something, but may have spoken about it).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, thinking about this, what's the implication for types? if agent and
>>> entity are in the range,
>>> then this is not a subtype of derivation.
>>> 
>>> To avoid the term writer I would suggest to rewrite as follows.
>>> 
>>> A primary source for a topic refers to people or material produced by people
>>> with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time of the
>>> topic's study, without benefit from hindsight.
>>> 
>>> Because of the directness of primary sources, they "speak for themselves" in
>>> ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources. As
>>> such, it is important for secondary sources to reference those primary
>>> sources from which they were derived, so that their reliability can be
>>> investigated.
>>> 
>>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of secondary
>>> materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that the
>>> determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be
>>> done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08/06/2012 18:54, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> 
>>> Luc,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Now that I understand the intent of Primary Source, I'd like to try to get a
>>> definition that communicates it effectively.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry, guys, please give me a definition/text/examples for this, I have been
>>> trying for six months …
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I've included one below.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I kept my proposal to reflect the "relation only" aspect that DM
>>> currently has for primary topic.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From what I gather, the discussion at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source helped many group members to
>>> understand the intent behind the term.
>>> Currently, I do not find that the same message is reflected in the DM, which
>>> I'm quoting below.
>>> 
>>> Luc had also pointed
>>> out http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#derivation-generation-generation-ordering
>>> as being particularly relevant to my point "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."
>>> 
>>> So, my definition, proposing to replace the current DM's definition and
>>> example:
>>> 
>>> =========== PROPOSED =======
>>> A primary source refers to material whose writer has direct experience and
>>> knowledge about the topic in question; the writing of such materials is done
>>> at the time under study and does not benefit from hindsight.
>>> A primary source may also be the writer of such material. Because of the
>>> directness of primary sources, they "speak for themselves" in ways that
>>> cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources. As such, it is
>>> important for secondary sources to reference those primary sources from
>>> which they were derived, so that their reliability can be investigated.
>>> 
>>> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of secondary
>>> materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that the
>>> determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be
>>> done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain.
>>> 
>>> Example 32
>>> 
>>> Let us consider Charles Joseph Minard's flow map of Napoleon's March in
>>> 1812, which was published in 1869. Although the map is not a primary source,
>>> Minard probably used the journal of Pierre-Irénée Jacob, pharmacist
>>> to Napoleon's army during the Russian campaign. This primary source relation
>>> can be encoded in the following prov-n expressions.
>>> 
>>> entity(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813)
>>> entity(ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII)
>>> wasDerivedFrom(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813,
>>> ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII,
>>>               [ prov:type='prov:Source' ])
>>> =============================
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Comments welcome.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Some materials accumulated while trying to piece together the proposal:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =========  DM   =====
>>> A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the
>>> person, information, period, or idea being studied.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Example 32
>>> Let us consider the concept introduced in the current section, identified
>>> as dm:concept-primary-source, and the Google
>>> page go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, where the notion original-source
>>> was originally described (to the knowledge of the authors).
>>> 
>>> entity(dm:concept-primary-source)
>>> entity(go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
>>> wasDerivedFrom(dm:concept-primary-source,
>>> go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html,
>>>               [ prov:type='prov:HadPrimarySource' ])
>>> 
>>> ==============
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ==== http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html===
>>> 
>>> "original-source indicates the URL of the first article to report on a
>>> story. We encourage publishers to use this metatag to give credit to the
>>> source that broke the story. We recognize that this can sometimes be tough
>>> to determine. But the intent of this tag is to reward hard work and
>>> journalistic enterprise."
>>> 
>>> Tim is concerned that "the first article to report a story" may not actually
>>> be a primary source as discussed by wikipedia's Primary Source.
>>> 
>>> =============
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ====== some clips from wikipedia ========
>>> "primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of
>>> hindsight"
>>> "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary"
>>> "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."
>>> "a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a
>>> document created by such a person."
>>> "an important objective of classifying sources [as primary] is to determine
>>> the independence and reliability of sources"
>>> "they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the
>>> filter of secondary sources"
>>> "modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available,
>>> as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate
>>> or not, offer new input into historical questions"
>>> "used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements,
>>> and other information that is passed from one author to another."
>>> 
>>> "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a
>>> scientist's new data, results, and theories. In political history, primary
>>> sources are documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets,
>>> posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and
>>> eyewitness accounts. In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the
>>> main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by
>>> intellectuals."
>>> 
>>> "In a broader sense primary sources also include artifacts like photographs,
>>> newsreels, coins, paintings or buildings created at the time."
>>> 
>>> "Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created by the
>>> people involved, at the time being studied."
>>> "Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical
>>> questions"
>>> "primary sources have the most direct connection to the past, and that they
>>> "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of
>>> secondary sources"
>>> =======================
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ===========
>>> http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html
>>>   ======
>>> "They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or
>>> conditions being documented."
>>> =================
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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 Monday, 11 June 2012 19:33:49 UTC

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