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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:49:45 -0500
Message-ID: <C412BC5D-2759-4328-9B08-66CB3197C6A7@vu.nl>
CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Yep

On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:27, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 
>> I think in this case, we could acknowledge this sort of pattern in a
>> primer. I don't think we have to slavishly follow wikipedia and the
>> attribution pattern sounds like the way around it and it keeps the
>> model tidy.
>> 
> 
> I agree. There is a degree of tidiness there.
> 
> I just wanted to point it out and have the group acknowledge the consequence.
> 
> So now a primary source is only a written thing, and not its writer.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I like this better than Luc's rewrite.
>>> However, it does lose the "document or person" openness that Wikipedia says, PML permitted, and some users have expected in general.
>>> 
>>> With this new "document only" definition, do we demand that one must ask who was attributed as author of the primary source? It seems reasonable to me, but we should acknowledge that it requires the extra step for those use cases.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 13:50:21 UTC

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