W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: prov-dm qualifier: a proposal to vote on (deadline Wednesday midnight GMT)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBBE97C.7060801@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc,

Please feel free to close issue 140, however this plays out.

Separately, I have a slight concern with the phrasing I see here that might 
suggest that all (entity) attributes are characterization (in light of the 
discussion to not discriminate between characterizing and non-characterizing 
attributes) - I'll need to look at the wider context to form a definite view, 
but I was thinking that something like:

[[
Attribute-value pairs are introduced to associate additional information with 
entities and activities.
]]

Might avoid the possible confusion.

#g
--


On 07/11/2011 22:48, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Again, in the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following
> proposal.
> Can you express your support for the proposal, or if you have issue with it,
> explain what
> the concern is.
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
>
> Context:
> Attribute-value pairs are introduced to provide characterizations of entities
> and activities.
> Name-value pairs are used to for qualifiers for use/generation/etc
>
> Proposal: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities,
> activities, use
> and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated
> production.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> PS. A consequence of this, is that we will use a uniform syntax for attributes
> in entities and
> uses/generation, and hence, hopefully address Graham's ISSUE-140
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/140
>
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:48 GMT