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

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

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:51:23 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9bba0fa7ee8452841818f852b0c78c03o83DpP08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5045F94B.3070107@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,
This issue is now closed.

On 12/06/12 14:50, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Paul, Tim,
> I noticed Paul's reference to having something in "a primer" about this. If something should be included in the PROV primer, please let me know the specifics. I'm afraid I haven't followed this thread in enough detail to know what should be said. The current primer does not mention this relation, but does use wasQuotedFrom in an example so it would not be out of place.
> thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Using Normative Markov Decision Processes for Evaluating Electronic Contracts:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1398/
> ________________________________________
> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
> Sent: 12 June 2012 14:27
> To: Paul Groth
> Cc: Luc Moreau; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]
> 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

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
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:21 UTC