- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:30:04 -0400
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Stian, On May 16, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> "quoted" parallels "taken" conceptually. > > or "took", if your mind is implying an agent. In my mind, "quoted" is > more like "cited", but then I'm not a native English speaker. I think your "swapped" interpretation is reflected by: :bible :wasCitedIn :hisSermon . > > We normally consider agents doing quoting than paragraphs. :bible :wasCitedBy :priest . Agents aren't involved in prov:wasQuotedFrom, it's between entities (big and small). > > Stian quoted the bible, and so the bible 'was quoted'. "Has this > document been quoted anywhere?" :bible :wasQuotedBy :priest . These are reasonable questions to answer, but it is a "downstream" direction that is dissonant with the "upstream" (backward in time) direction that all of the other properties provide (used, wasGeneratedBy, etc). > The "From" is the spanner in the > works, it tries to change the directionality, and I understand the > phrase "was quoted from", but when you see it there in the RDF and > it's not something as easy as a paragraph and a bible, but a blogpost > and a tweet, then you can't really be sure. > > >> And breaking the "wasDerivedFrom" pattern seems like a bad idea as we're trying to finish up with a more consistent model, not less. > > I agree to not fracture the model. I was just hoping for a small > modification to clarify the direction, like "wasQuoteFrom". I think > that is more important than if it is still a quote or not. :-/ -Tim > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester >
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:37:28 UTC