Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

Stian,

On Feb 11, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Perhaps simply introducing the domain of Entity-subclass
> prov:Quotation is sufficient to make this clear.

We already have a prov:Quotation, which serves as the qualified form of wasQuotedFrom.
Perhaps you mean something like "Quote", but adding any new class will put us back to LC, won't it?

>  It would perhaps
> seem odd to have the prov:wasQuotedFrom relationship alone, as it's
> quite specific provenance that you perhaps did not expect to find in
> PROV. We have however agreed that it could be reused beyond the
> textual citations from books, etc - for instance, from my domain:

I think the broad use of wasQuotedFrom is a good reason to avoid a subclass of Enitty (e.g. Quote).
wasQuotedFrom is simply another relation that one can express among Entities - the core of PROV.

> 
> <http://example.com/workflow> a prov:Entity, :Workflow ;
>    dcterms:hasPart :component1, :component2 .
> 
> <http://example.com/workflow#component1> a prov:Entity, :Component,
>    prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://example.com/otherWorkflow> ;
>    prov:alternateOf <http://example.com/otherWorkflow#component3> .
> 
> 
> Here we just want to say that I've taken some part #component3 from
> <http://example.com/otherWorkflow> and copied it (somewhat verbatim)
> to our <http://example.com/workflow>.
> 
> 
> A key property of a quotation is where it was from
> (prov:wasQuotedFrom),

Which PROV covers.

> another would be who it's attributed to

Which PROV covers.

> (we
> should clarify if prov:wasAttributedTo on a prov:Quotation

are you abusing here the existing prov:Quotation to be a subclass of Entity (i.e, Quote)?

> should show
> who uttered the original quote, who chose to cut it out and use it as
> a quotation, or both.)

Which PROV covers.

> 
> A quotation is also usually part of something else - but if we were to
> recommend say dcterms:isPartOf for this, then we might also have to
> clarify if a prov:Quotation is a particular quotation somewhere else.



> 
> Ie. is ("To be or not to be" as quoted in a blog post by Stian is a
> different prov:Quotation from "To be or not to be" in a tweet by
> Stian) , or if it is that selection of an original, no matter who is
> doing the quoting. (Ie. "To be or not to be" in my blog post,  in a
> tweet, in another book, and in a play could all be the same
> prov:Quotation instance).

specialization and multiple distinct identifiers (URIs) handles this.


-Tim

> I would tend towards the first, which would
> make prov:wasAttributedTo to the original author trickier, or even
> just let it be open (allow both styles) - but then not say anything
> about part-of.
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 

Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 13:43:04 UTC