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

+1

2013/1/23 Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>

> +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
>> wasQuoted>From 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>