W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > November 2012

Re: PROV response to comment on bundles and ids

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:23:04 +0000
Message-ID: <509BCE58.5080202@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
On 27/10/2012 15:02, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Satra
>
> So we don't allow the nesting of bundles to avoid complications about there interpretation.  Thus, in prov-n we introduced the notion of document as a container for all statements that are not part if a bundle.

Hmmm... that sounds to me a bit like a use/mention confusion.  I would say the 
outermost document construct contains provenance statements that are *not 
mentioned in the current document* as part of a bundle.   But the same 
statements may yet be part of a bundle defined elsewhere.

Maybe this is what you meant, but it's not what your wording here implies (to me).

BTW, I assume that the recent clarification of the namespace scoping means the 
proffered example is OK.

#g
--

>
> We can add your example as something that is invalid. One needs to redeclare the namespace prefix.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 14:51, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> thanks for the clarification. i think it would be useful to add the following invalid example as well unless the following is indeed valid.
>>
>> ---
>> document
>>   prefix ex <http://example.org/>
>>   bundle ex:b1
>>      entity(ex:e1, ...someattr1...)
>>      entity(ex:e1, ...someattr2...)
>>   endBundle
>> endDocument
>> ---
>>
>> on a side note, this is the first time i'm seeing the Document/endDocument construct, why not another Bunde/endBundle?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> satra
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi Satra,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your active engagement with helping improve W3C PROV. We have taken a look at your comment:
>>>
>>> "if one were implementing a database storing prov bundles, would we have to ensure that IDs don't clash in the database insertion code? or is the understanding that IDs are only meant to be unique within a given bundle context?"
>>>
>>> You can find our response here:
>>>
>>> 1.1.33 ISSUE-482 (Bundles and IDs)
>>>
>>> As part of the W3C process, we need to have an acknowledgement from you that our response solves your comment or if not a bit of description as to why. Could you provide that for us?
>>>
>>> Thanks again for all your help,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> - The Network Institute
>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>
>
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 04:05:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 November 2012 04:05:47 GMT