W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:15:30 -0500
Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1EFA51F0-72E3-4C69-A4C9-01DD74FA67A4@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
What is interoperable about subtypes?
Nothing, except that they are commonly viewed as what is defined in PROV.
So all interoperable parties only see prov:alternativeOf.


my:particularAlternateOf 
    rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:alternateOf .

:cup_from_right     my:particularAlternateOf   :cup_from_left .

==>

:cup_from_right     my:particularAlternateOf   :cup_from_left .
:cup_from_right     prov:alternateOf   :cup_from_left .

But when I share that around, the only thing anybody understands is  the "interoperable" one --  prov:alternateOf.


So I don't see the need to "bring subtyping in" to PROV. Because that bit of knowledge doesn't increase interoperability.

-Tim






On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim 
> But what about sub typing of alternateOf?
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi James,
>>> 
>>> I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include
>>> an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy,
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html
>>> we have added them.
>> 
>> -1 leans towards bloat
>> 
>>> 
>>> I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and vice-versa.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>>> 
>>> As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations.
>> 
>> The subtyping can be placed onto your Note(id,[prov:type = "my subtype").
>> This would let you reuse the same hadAnnotation relation.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes for IVPof.
>>> This could also be encoded with attributes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 02/14/2012 09:18 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 14:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT