- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:19:13 +0100
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 19/04/2012 00:33, James Cheney wrote: > OK, I've posted my thoughts on this, and a proposal, at: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Optional_arguments Works for me. In response to Luc's response... I think this is *not* primarily about how easy it is to *parse* - LL(1) grammars and the like - but how easy it is to associate the different productions with semantic interpretations (and, of course, how easy it is for a reader to follow). I don't have a particularly strong personal view of how the syntax should appear, but I do think that any change that makes it easier for James to express the semantics is a Good Thing. (I'm obliquely reminded of http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadlers_Law) #g -- > (Sorry this is a bit long, but I think it is worth being a little pedantic here). > > I'd like to keep this open for discussion, but don't think it's a blocking issue. > > --James > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:43 AM, James Cheney wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been working on the optional arguments in part 2, and I am still not sure what to write baed on what is in part 1 now. I am trying to formulate a proposal to see if I am on the right track. So I think this should be kept open for now (maybe it should be reassigned to prov-dm-constraints). >> >> --James >> >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >>> Hi Stian, >>> Can we close this issue now? >>> Regards, >>> Luc >>> >>> On 04/02/2012 03:58 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> Hi Stian, >>>> >>>> If you follow [1] below, you will now find our proposed answer to optional arguments. >>>> It contains explicit links to prov-dm part 2. >>>> >>>> I propose to close this issue pending your review. >>>> Regards, >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/30/2012 04:12 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stian, >>>>> >>>>> I have been thinking about your suggestion on optional arguments. >>>>> I looked at all the optional arguments [1] in prov-dm. >>>>> >>>>> Most of them, I believe, imply existential quantification. >>>>> >>>>> It would be nice to have this confirmed, and then we can write it up in part 2. >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/optional.html >>>>> >>>>> On 13/03/2012 11:05, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-311 (clarify-optionals): Clarify optional arguments in DM [prov-dm] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes >>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>> >>>>>> There seems to be some confusion over any of the 'optional' arguments in >>>>>> PROV-DM/PROV-N. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is unclear if this means that the argument is *implied* (ie. >>>>>> existential quantification/bnodes in OWL/RDF) or not applicable/not present (NIL). >>>>>> >>>>>> It might be good to go through all of the optionals in PROV-DM and make sure they make that clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> For instance: >>>>>>> Generation, written wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs) in PROV-N, has the following components: >>>>>>> id: an optional identifier for a generation; >>>>>>> entity: an identifier for a created entity; >>>>>>> activity: an optional identifier for the activity that creates the entity; >>>>>>> time: an optional "generation time", the time at which the entity was completely created; >>>>>>> attributes: an optional set of attribute-value pairs that describes the modalities of generation of this entity by this activity. >>>>>> Change to: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Generation, written wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs) in PROV-N, has the following components: >>>>>>> id: an optional identifier for a generation, if unspecified the identifier is not known; >>>>>>> entity: an identifier for a created entity; >>>>>>> activity: an optional identifier for the activity that creates the entity, if unspecified activity is still implied, but unknown; >>>>>>> time: an optional "generation time", the time at which the entity was completely created, if unspecified the time is unknown or not applicable; >>>>>>> attributes: an optional set of attribute-value pairs that describes the modalities of generation of this entity by this activity, if unspecified an empty set is implied. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 11:04:53 UTC