- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:49:34 +0100
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpE9PHT2y8cigy2iwK-gnWYC7T74DAwdXLShN_LBwE7Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, I mean just state the convention that we choose and why we choose it. In the Primer, we use Turtle and PROV-XML. The problem is that you see something like :bob a prov:Entity. <prov:entity prov:id=":bob"/> and I can see how it's weird that we define in the same namespace both a lower and uppercase Paul On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > > I think this is a fine rationale but I also think it needs maybe a > couple sentences of justification. > > > ? Do you mean add this rationale to the note? > > > Also, for the primer, we should think about whether we want to show each > serialisation in parallel as this may cause unwanted comparison. > > > I agree that can be an issue with both a RDF/XML and non-RDF XML > serialization. Especially since they have the same namespace (!). Perhaps > we should just use a TriG serialization for PROV-O in the primer? That > ducks the issue about there being 2 XML serializations, which is something > we should probably directly address. > > --Stephan > > > regards > Paul > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> PROV-XML is not an RDF/XML serialization and I believe it would be a >> mistake to create the expectation that it conforms to RDF/XML conventions. >> Doing so could introduce incorrect assumptions on how PROV-XML maps >> against PROV-O. PROV-XML was intended as a non-RDF encoding of PROV. For >> a RDF/XML serialization of PROV use PROV-O. >> >> I believe we went with camelCase in element names because it conformed >> with PROV-N conventions. We used PascalCase in complexType names to >> differentiate element and complex type names. In the schema the >> complexType for entity has name "prov:Entity" and the element you use to >> reference a prov:Entity from the document root has name "prov:entity". >> >> --Stephan >> >> On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *Resent-From:* <p.t.groth@vu.nl> >> *From:* Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com> >> *Date:* December 12, 2012, 22:56:42 GMT+01:00 >> *To:* "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl> >> *Cc:* Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org> >> *Subject:* *Re: Element names in prov-xml* >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >> >> I've been having a chat with Egon Willighagen in twitter about the >> element name case in prov-xml. You can see excerpts below. The key question >> is why element names are lower case e.g <prov:entity ...> and not upper >> case. This does not correspond to the convention in rdf/xml plus it looks a >> bit weird when sitting next to the turtle. >> >> >> The relevant section in the 2004 RDF/XML spec is 2.13 which describes >> the behavior: >> >> "It is common for RDF graphs to have rdf:type predicates from subject >> nodes. These are conventionally called typed nodes in the graph, or >> typed node elements in the RDF/XML. RDF/XML allows this triple to be >> expressed more concisely. by replacing the rdf:Description node >> element name with the namespaced-element corresponding to the RDF URI >> reference of the value of the type relationship." >> >> You can test it with this XML snippet >> >> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >> xmlns:prov="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#"> >> <prov:entity rdf:about="ex:article"> >> <dc:title>Crime rises in cities</dc:title> >> </prov:entity> >> </rdf:RDF> >> >> here -> http://www.rdfabout.com/demo/validator/ >> >> If you 'validate' it, it will also create other formats, showing that >> the above RDF/XML has a rdf:type prov:entity ... that confirms that >> convention. >> >> Section 2.13 is not >> >> Do we have a good explanation for this? >> >> >> Also note that my RDF/XML snippet uses rdf:about rather than prov:id >> ... I have to check whether rdf:ID or rdf:about is more appropriate, >> but that would be closer to RDF/XML too than prov:id ... but that's a >> separate thing you may want to look at. >> >> Egon >> >> >> -- >> Dr E.L. Willighagen >> Postdoctoral Researcher >> Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT >> Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/) >> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw >> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ >> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers >> >> > > > -- > -- > 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 > > -- -- 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 Thursday, 13 December 2012 09:50:03 UTC