- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:28:17 +0100
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|11c637712cfabcdda3fbbbdd288c34d9o4DMSN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FB178F1>
Daniel,
I am fine with having this item on the telcon agenda.
Luc
On 14/05/12 22:09, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> the problem I have with the current name is that I find confusing what
> is quoting what
> in the relationship. It may have to do with the fact that I am used to
> see that something was quoted in some other
> source, while this is very unlikely to happen with derivation (a was
> derived in b?). Thus wasQuotedFrom
> sounds strange, while wasDerivedFrom doesn't.
>
> However, I have to recognize that my suggestions haven't had enough
> support. The only ones Tim hasn't given a
> -1 are clear about the directionality, but do not convince me
> completely (it would be very weird to see a property
> in the present tense when all the rest are in past tense, and I can't
> remember if "wasQuoteOf" has other problems
> besides what Tim highlighted). So, if I am the only one having
> trouble with "wasQuotedFrom" then I'll guess I'll have
> to live with it and close the issue.
>
> I was wondering if we could leave it open until next telecon, so as to
> get feedback from the rest of the group.
>
> Best,
> Daniel
>
> 2012/5/14 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>
> Hi Daniel,
> Can you remind us what the problem is with the current name and
> how the proposed name addresses it?
> Thanks
>
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 14 May 2012, at 19:08, "Daniel Garijo"
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
> <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> It seemed like there was not enough consensus in the telecon past
>> thursday about the last proposal.
>> If I remember correctly, Tim and Jun voted -1 for prov:wasAQuoteFrom.
>>
>> So far, there have been the next proposals:
>>
>> * quoted: there was no consensus because it could imply an
>> agent instead of an entity.
>> * wasQuoteOf: we started with this definition, and moved away
>> because it was confusing.
>> * hadQuoteFrom: there was no consensus because it could imply
>> that the quotation is partial.
>> * wasAQuoteFrom: there was no consensus because "if it was a
>> quote, then what is it now"?
>> * isAQuoteFrom/isQuoteFrom: there has been no votes on this
>> one, but it goes against having everything
>> in past tense.
>> * wasQuotedFrom: the current name and the only one I have
>> concerns about, because
>> the directionality of the property is not clear enough.
>>
>> Just a small remark: the issue is about the name of the property.
>> The definition on DM is very clear.
>>
>> During today's prov-o telecon Tim said that he proposed to move
>> away from wasQuoteOf in order
>> to have something similar to wasDerivedFrom. I would be happy to
>> go back to wasQuoteOf if there
>> is no other suggestion.
>>
>> Thoughts, Jun, Tim?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> 2012/5/8 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>
>> good idea, we'll put it on Thursday's agenda
>>
>>
>> On 05/08/2012 03:20 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>> Hi Luc,
>>> I still think that the name could be improved because the
>>> current one is confusing.
>>>
>>> My last proposal ("wasAQuoteFrom") got a +1 from Stian and Paul
>>> (although he said he would think of a better name).
>>> Nobody else said anything,
>>> so maybe we should ask the rest of the group on thursday?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> 2012/5/8 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> I don't believe there was consensus to change the name
>>> of the relation as you suggested.
>>> We also have removed agents from this definition.
>>> Definition of quote/original attributes
>>> are as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> quote: an identifier (e2) for the entity that represents
>>> the quote (the partial copy);
>>> original: an identifier (e1) for the original entity
>>> being quoted;
>>>
>>> Can we close this issue?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue
>>> Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-352 (rename-WasQuotedFrom): A better name
>>> for wasQuotedFrom [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/352
>>>
>>> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> Currently, the DM says:
>>> A quotation record, written
>>> wasQuotedFrom(e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) in PROV-ASN,
>>> contains:
>>> quote: an identifier e2, identifying an entity
>>> record that represents the quote;
>>> quoted: an identifier e1, identifying an entity
>>> record representing what is being quoted;
>>> ...
>>>
>>> However, if we say that e2 wasQuotedFrom e1 it may
>>> look like entity e1 is the one quoting e2 (since we
>>> are saying that e2 was quoted).
>>>
>>> I think it would be more clear if we rename the
>>> property with e2 wasQuoteOf e1, or e2 hadQuoteFrom e1.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email:
>>> l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science tel:+44 23 8059 4487 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>> University of Southampton fax:+44 23 8059 2865 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 21:29:49 UTC