RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship

Agree that hadMember would not be good, making a blog post a collection is
quite confusing,  if not wrong.

If we need to say something, we should just relate them with
dcterms:hasPart, as we (perhaps sadly)
decided to not cover entity partOf entity in PROV.

However I think for the primer we are fine unless someone outside asks for
that relation.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
myGrid team, University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work
On 20 Feb 2013 00:02, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Stian,
>
> Yes, I also thought about expressing the containment relation between the
> blog post and quote. I noticed that you and Tim used dcterms:hasPart to
> express this in this mail thread. We also have prov:hadMember, which might
> be more appropriate, as the fact that the quote is part of the blog entry
> is a possibly temporary past state (implied in the primer example by the
> fact that the article it quotes from is updated), which dcterms:hasPart
> doesn't obviously capture. Also, we recommend dcterms:hasPart for relating
> PROV activities, whereas these are entities. On the other hand, using
> prov:hadMember would make the blog entry a prov:Collection, and it is not
> the most intuitive example of a collection for a primer.
>
> In the end, the implications seemed too complicated for a primer,
> especially as the blog entry entity is not itself used anywhere else in the
> example, so I left it out. There might be an intuitive, succinct and
> unambiguous way to introduce it, though, if we thought it useful.
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance Model:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: stian@mygrid.org.uk [stian@mygrid.org.uk] on behalf of Stian
> Soiland-Reyes [soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 February 2013 23:29
> To: Miles, Simon
> Cc: pgroth@gmail.com; Timothy Lebo; public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG
> Subject: Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
>
> This reads well in the primer and in your response. The combination of
> ex:quoteInBlogEntry and prov:value here makes it quite obvious.  If we
> want to expand it more we could use html blockquote, id and RDFa
> argument.
>
> An open question could be how we know that ex:quoteInBlogEntry is part
> of ( ex:blogPost ?)  , but as we just skim and don't mention the blog
> post I think we can get away with the current text. :-)   (It is kind
> of out of scope of PROV to define such kind of containment or
> belonging).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > Tim, Paul, Stian, all,
> >
> > It is clear that, to resolve the issue discussed below, a "quote in blog
> > entry" entity needs to be introduced into the primer. I've constructed a
> > response below, based on your feedback. Please also the revised primer,
> > start of Section 3.9.
> >
> > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> >
> > Does this seem an adequate response to Chuck?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Simon
> >
> > ===
> > After discussion, we agree with you that the PROV primer was still
> unclear,
> > or possibly just wrong, in the way it was implying wasQuotedFrom could be
> > used. As you say, one would not say that "X was quoted from Y" if X was
> not
> > a quotation. We still believe the relation itself, as defined in the PROV
> > specifications, is correct and unambiguous.
> >
> > We have revised the primer again following your suggestion of
> introducing an
> > entity that is more clearly a quotation, ex:quoteInBlogEntry, and made
> > explicit the text actually quoted ("Smaller cities have more crime than
> > larger ones.")
> >
> > With regards to wasQuotedFrom itself, we note that "X wasQuotedFrom Y"
> > implies that X is a quotation, and that this follows the same idea of
> > quotation as in HTML ("The blockquote element represents a section that
> is
> > quoted from another source", HTML5). PROV does not provide a relation "X
> was
> > quoted from in Y".
> >
> > Please see the revised primer at the link below. The relevant text and
> > example are at the start of Section 3.9, as before.
> >
> > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> >
> > Do you believe this now addresses your concern?
> > ===
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Groth [pgroth@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 11 February 2013 20:50
> > To: Timothy Lebo
> > Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; Miles, Simon; public-prov-wg@w3.org Group WG
> > Subject: Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship
> >
> > Oh just saw that html5 defines blockquote as:
> >
> > "The blockquote element represents a section that is quoted from another
> > source"
> >
> > I think prov:wasQuotedFrom fits that definition perfectly.
> >
> > cheers
> > Paul
> >
> > P.S. We should write a blog post about how to use prov with html5
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, there's a risk that if we under specify that many will use it
> >> differently. But the WG is simply providing the core.
> >> As long as people are conforming to Activity and Entity, we should be
> >> okay…
> >>
> >> -Tim
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>
>