- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:54:35 +0200
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom convey the same meaning. I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of things. 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
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 06:55:07 UTC