W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2013

RE: PROV-ISSUE-616 (quoted-in-primer): Confusing use of wasQuotedFrom in primer [Primer]

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:09:46 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C4016FF719@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello WG,

Please find the proposed response to Chuck Morris here:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616

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: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
Sent: 23 January 2013 17:57
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: PROV-ISSUE-616 (quoted-in-primer): Confusing use of wasQuotedFrom in primer [Primer]

PROV-ISSUE-616 (quoted-in-primer): Confusing use of wasQuotedFrom in primer [Primer]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/616

Raised by: Simon Miles
On product: Primer

Public comment from Chuck Morris:

"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."

Original mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0006.html





Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 18:10:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC