- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:27:13 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> 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. Argh.. I forgot about that. Well, having both might become confusing.. although prov:qualifiedQuotation would also have domain prov:Quote, I think having both would not be good. > Perhaps you mean something like "Quote", but adding any new class will put us back to LC, won't it? I'm afraid so. :-( > 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. OK, so I think the current situation is workable if we just tweak the primer. The PROV-O description of prov:Quotation etc. are detailed enough to clarify what it is for. We don't imply other classes either, like Attributor subclass of Agent etc because of a wasAttributedTo, and for some folks enforcing a new class could put them off using the relationship because they are not bothered looking up what the new class means. >> 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)? No, I just forgot about the existing one. :) The prov:Quotation is also a confusing name in a way, but it covers the 'act/state of quoting' in a way rather than the Quote itself (the passage). (We've discussed this before). >> should show >> who uttered the original quote, who chose to cut it out and use it as >> a quotation, or both.) > Which PROV covers. PROV can cover a lot of things, but I just hope we have not just made a kind of "SGML of provenance" in that it allows anything and recommends nothing, as then you are still just as confused after reading the specs, and as a result everybody would end up using PROV differently. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 16:28:03 UTC