- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:31:46 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Backing off from URIs altogether for what we are calling names/literals seems sensible to me. -Paolo On 11/10/11 3:02 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Here is a first draft of the literal section. > > > > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal > > > I have problems with this. > > (1) The first paragraph is confusing. Es[pecially the second sentence - what is > this trying to say? > > (2) "a PROV-DM Literal may be a URI-typed string (with datatype xsd:anyURI), or > URI-denoted resource (with datatype rdf:Resource); in either case; such URI has > no specific interpretation in the context of PROV-DM." > > Firstly, the structure here is so close to the structure of RDF literals, that > to then not adopt the standard RDF semantics for them is, IMO, a recipe for much > confusion. > > Secondly, the idea of using rdf:Resource as a datatype URI seems to fly in the > face of RDF. If you are going to explicitly use RDF URIs, I think it's crucial > to adopt RDF semantics for them. > > ... > > Personally, I think DM would do better to back off from specifying URIs and > RDF-style literals, and just talk about names and literals, specifying a minimum > that you need to express the abstract model. > > The Ontology document can then carry the task of mapping the abstract model to > RDF, which IMO would lead to a much cleaner separation of concerns. > > #g > -- > > > On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Tim, Stephan, Jim, >> >> Here is a first draft of the literal section. >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal >> >> >> It would be good to have your feedback. >> If you find it's ok, than the literals examples in the document need to be checked. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 07/11/11 18:15, Jim McCusker wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paolo Missier<Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> DM says: >>>> >>>> 5.5.5 Literal >>>> >>>> Literals represent data values such as particular string or integers. >>>> >>>> My understanding is it's always been used in the standard grammar production >>>> meaning (eg: http://savage.net.au/SQL/sql-2003-2.bnf.html#literal). Not so? >>> I think a clearer definition would be: >>> >>> A Provenance Literal is a "leaf" value. It does not explicitly have >>> any outgoing relations (in SW-ish: Is not a subject of any statement) >>> in the PROV data model. Any outgoing relations from a Provenance >>> Literal is out of scope for the PROV DM. >>> >>> Jim -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 19:32:22 UTC