- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:23:38 +0100
- To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 On Jan 23, 2013, at 19:09, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 18:24:31 UTC