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

+1


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> +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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>