- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:43:36 -0500
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
James, altOf and specOf came to my mind in addition to hasAnnotation, too. I'm not sure any of these three need attributes-values. Luc, Adding attributes to any relation brings with it extra classes, predicates, and triples. In the case for hasAnnotation, we can not put attributes on the Entity itself, the Note that is "associated with" the Entity (WD4 phrase), OR the Relation between the Entity and Note. That's three places, which I'm not sure is in the direction of "simplicity". The only that I can think of for annotations in these three places is to annotate the source of the note - which I would be better represented in "assertion bundles". -Tim On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:18 AM, James Cheney wrote: > > While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity. > > I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense. If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of. > > I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML. > > --James > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > ----- Original message ----- >> Hi Tim >> You're right. >> I am not trying to defend attributes in hasAnnotation at all cost. >> I think they are present for uniformity reason. >> Can we provide a rationale why there should not be attributes here? >> It would be the only relation without them. >> >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> On 14 Feb 2012, at 01:03, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> note(n2,[ex:style="dotted"]) >>>>> hasAnnotation(u1,n2) >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> hasAnnotation(u1,n2,[ex:style="dotted") >>>>> >>>> >>>> To me they are *not* equivalent. >>>> >>>>> There are no examples in the DM document showing hasAnnotation with a >>>>> non-empty list of attributes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we could subtype the relation hasAnnotation: hasTrustAnnotation, >>>> hasReputationAnnotation, ... >>>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that we could achieve this by subtyping Note and avoiding the >>> need to qualify hadAnnotation. >>> >>> :myNote prov:hadAnnotation :myMetaNote . >>> >>> :myMetaNote a prov:Note, my:TrustNote; >>> rdfs:comment "THAT NOTE OVER THERE IS THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY NOTE EVER. :: >>> signed :: Tim." . >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:44:17 UTC