Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

Hi Tim,

I think your comments are correct. The suggested "quoteFrom" is as you say
inconsistent with wasDerivedFrom.

Also it seems we can clarify this is in the primer.

I think it's hard to say that we haven't had a discussion on naming and
this was the consensus name. In general, I think Chuck wants something we
don't provide.

cheers
Paul


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Simon,
>
> I'm directing comments to you in hopes that the wg can develop another
> response.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > Resent-From: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> > From: "Morris, Chuck E (IS)" <chuck.morris@ngc.com>
> > Subject: RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
> > Date: February 7, 2013 2:18:48 PM EST
> > To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-comments@w3.org"
> <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
> >
> > Thanks for the response.  I can see an attempt to deal with the issue,
> but I’m not convinced that it has been resolved satisfactorily.  I still
> think there is a fundamental problem with the wasQuotedFrom relationship
> name.  I recognize that the pattern “X was quoted from Y” is used in
> colloquial language to attribute quotations,
>
>
> This is exactly the intent of the relation. Some [quote] Entity is taken
> from some previous [larger] Entity.
>
> I just copied Chuck's name from his own email:
>
> [ a prov:Entity;
>    prov:value "Chuck";
>    prov:wasQuotedFrom <
> http://www.w3.org/mid/B7183A6EEAB3B049B77D39BDE3F9D70F485E3259@XMBVAG71.northgrum.com
> >;
> ] .
>
> <
> http://www.w3.org/mid/B7183A6EEAB3B049B77D39BDE3F9D70F485E3259@XMBVAG71.northgrum.com>
> a prov:Entity, :Email .
>
>
>
>
> > but only when it is clear that X is a quotation.
>
>
> The use of the property implies that X is a quotation, by the definition
> of the property.
> The domain of the property is not constrained because it wasn't necessary
> -- Entity is sufficient.
>
>
>
> > No one would say “X was quoted from Y” if X is not a quotation,
>
> +100
>
> > but they may well say “X was quoted from in Y”, meaning Y contains a
> quote that came from X.
>
> We do not offer this relation.
> @Simon, is the tutorial leading people down this path? If so, I think it
> should simply be removed entirely.
> The example seems to be misinterpreting the relation.
> And I don't' think that a "scruffy" argument makes sense.
> I'm as scruffy as they come, and even THAT distinction (which involves a
> whole-part indirection) doesn't make sense to me.
> When the part is quoted from, it does not imply that the whole is quoted
> from. It's simply too degenerate.
>
>
> >  If you see “X wasQuotedFrom Y” and you do not know that X is a
> quotation,
>
> You **DO** know that X is a quotation, simply by the fact that it
> wasQuotedFrom something.
> Chuck's assumption here is invalid, so the remaining argument does not
> work.
>
> > I think it is more natural to assume that it means “X was quoted from
> [in] Y”
>
>
> Yes, this would "swap" the direction of the "wasQuote" relation, where X
> is the big, earlier entity and Y is the "blog that includes a chunk of text
> from X".
> BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT THE RELATION IS.
>
> > than to assume that it means “X [is a quote that] was quoted from Y”.
>
> NOR IS THIS.
> I think the primer example misleads to this interpretation.
> Can we not directly describe the actual quoted value
>
>     :my_clipping dcterms:isPartOf :my_blog with prov:wasQuotedFrom :bible ?
>
>
> >  That is especially true in scruffy usage when X is not a quote, but
> merely contains a quote.
>
> This is NOT a valid "proper" or "scruffy" interpretation.
>
>
> > I see from the discussion that quoted, wasQuoteOf, hadQuoteFrom,
> wasAQuoteFrom, isAQuoteFrom, and isQuoteFrom were all rejected.  How about
> just quoteFrom?  That isn’t past tense, but it seems to me that it would be
> consistent with some of the other relationship names like alternateOf and
> specializationOf.
>
> It would be inconsistent with its own super property, wasDerivedFrom
> (where Quoted is a type of Derivation).
>
>
> > And perhaps it would also be helpful to either change ex:blogEntry in
> the primer to ex:quoteInBlog to avoid scruffy usage,
>
> +10000 (I think this was my biggest vote ever…)
>
> > or add text to point out that the usage of the relationship is an
> example of scruffy usage.
>
> IT IS NOT A GOOD USE OF SCRUFFY. And I don't think this argument can be
> used to violate the intent of the wasQuotedFrom.
> I think it's best to pair an entity that was quoted from another entity
> with the prov:value of the quoted string, to make its use obvious.
>
> -Tim
>
>
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: Miles, Simon [mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08 AM
> > To: Morris, Chuck E (IS); public-prov-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: EXT :RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
> >
> > Hello Chuck,
> >
> > Thanks for your comment. The Provenance Working Group has discussed
> this, and prepared a response
> >
> > The main point is that we think this is just the primer text being
> misleading rather than the relation name being incorrect. The wasQuotedFrom
> relation should link a quote to the document it was quoted from. The primer
> currently can be read as linking something *containing* a quote to the
> place it was quoted from, which is allowable under "scruffy" use of PROV,
> but not ideal for illustrating the concept as it doesn't match the relation
> name, as you indicate. More generally, the working group previously
> extensively discussed the matter of the relation name, including
> considering hadQuotationFrom. While no relation name may be perfect, it was
> agreed wasQuotedFrom matches the intent of the relation and PROV-DM
> definition better than hadQuotation>From or other relations.
> >
> > Full details of the response, and the clarifications we intend to make
> to the primer, are below
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616
> >
> > Can you let us know whether that response addresses your comment?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Simon
> >
> > Dr Simon Miles
> > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> > +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> >
> > Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
> > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
> > From: Morris, Chuck E (IS) [chuck.morris@ngc.com]
> > Sent: 10 January 2013 18:55
> > To: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
> >
> > I just looked over the provenance primer.  One thing I noticed is that
> the wasQuotedFrom relationship is very confusing semantically.  Take the
> example in the primer where Betty posts a blog entry with a quote from the
> newspaper article.  The provenance is expressed as (ex:blogEntry
> prov:wasQuotedFrom ex:article .) But that seems to imply that the blog
> entry was quoted by the newspaper article instead of the other way around.
>  I suggest that a better name for the relationship would be
> prov:hadQuotationFrom.
> >
> > Chuck Morris
> >
>
>
>