- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:06:55 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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. 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
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 14:07:27 UTC