- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:26:08 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B1D64AB0-6158-43CB-981D-DEB0E650D7D6@rpi.edu>
Luc, Regarding the name, Yes, I think we agreed on hadPrimarySource. Though, looking at the definition at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source : A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied. 1) A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation that aims to give credit to the source that originated some information. It is recognized that it may be hard to determine which entity constitutes a primary source. This definition is inspired by original-source as defined in http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html. does not lead me think of what is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source 2) A primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. #1 still gives me this loose bloggy feel, and not the curation feel that I think is important for Primary Sources. While #2 claims "it's hard to determine", I disagree, #1 is clear that it must have been "created at the time under study". I suggesting making #2 the definition, and attenuating the emphasis on http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html (by perhaps stating that "in the blogosphere, Primary source is a concern as discussed by googlenewsblog) -Tim On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:43 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > Yes. It remains as such. > > Thanks > Paul > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> hasPrimarySource or hadPrimarySource? >> >> Is the definition remaining unchanged beyond s/original/primary/ ? >> >> Luc >> >> On 06/06/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> I believe that the consensus is to rename it to PrimarySource. >>> >>> hasPrimarySource >>> >>> Is that correct, Jim, Tim. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Paul, Tim, Jim, all, >>>> >>>> What's the consensus on this? What definition and name do you want to >>>> adopt for this >>>> relation? >>>> >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> hadPrimarySource is much clearer. Anyone who has paid attention in history >>>>>> class (at least in the US) should be familiar with the idea of primary >>>>>> sources, so I think it's probably the most useful term. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi TIm, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think i'm bending your way. If other's think primary source is more >>>>>>> intelligible then I'm happy to change this. >>>>>>> I think Luc also finally "got' this relation when I pointed him to the >>>>>>> wiki page so maybe that says something as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the same intent as the google definition of original source in >>>>>>>>> my reading of their post. I would consider primary source but think >>>>>>>>> original source has some history of usage on the web already. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where on the web is "original source" used? >>>>>>>> Blogging? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anywhere else? >>>>>>>> I'm not a blogger, and I haven't seen "original source". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, orginalsource had the meaning >>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, did we shift from the meaning taken from that Google Blog about >>>>>>>>>> journalism ? >>>>>>>>>> (which, I can't find in any public draft, so I guess "yes"…) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source >>>>>>>>>> __much__ better, >>>>>>>>>> I had no idea that that was the intent of hadOriginalSource. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since wikipedia choose the name "primary", perhaps we should too. >>>>>>>>>> I would be in favor of renaming: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hadOriginalSource -> hadPrimarySource >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now that I understand the concept, I'd rather this than the >>>>>>>>>> "originatedFrom", which is drastically different. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To me a "big change" now is changing stuff that has been in the spec >>>>>>>>>>> in a number of drafts. I won't really argue hard but I want to be >>>>>>>>>>> convinced that this is worth it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's reasonable. But perhaps it indicates that the bigger problems >>>>>>>>>> are out of the way now :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Tim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think that they are pretty close in meaning, and one follows the >>>>>>>>>>>> naming style more appropriately. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of >>>>>>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How do you measure "big"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracker >>>>>>>>>>>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [prov-dm] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/395 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DM editors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could hadOriginalSource be renamed to "originatedFrom" ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a little more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely, and avoids an exception to PROV-O's "has" naming convention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, perhaps the Involvement "Source" could be renamed "Origin"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And qualifiedSource would become qualifiedOrigin. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that this naming is a little more natural. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (yes, this is phrased in terms of PROV-O, but an issue on DM; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably best product would be mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o...) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ >>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group >>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section >>>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jim McCusker >>>>>> Programmer Analyst >>>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>>>>> Yale School of Medicine >>>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >>>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> PhD Student >>>>>> Tetherless World Constellation >>>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >>>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group > Artificial Intelligence Section > Department of Computer Science > VU University Amsterdam > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 12:26:49 UTC