- From: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:18:46 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Maybe it can be a review question. Tim Sent from my iPad On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:05, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Tim and Paul, > > I don't see a consensus emerging on this issue. > I keep it raised, for now, while we proceed to > the internal review. > > Cheers, > Luc > > On 05/06/12 04:06, 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 11:19:22 UTC