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 09:17:30 -0500
Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FAA53539-A286-4A77-919E-33CB25D0ADC3@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
That sounds reasonable.

Then clients that do care about the subtypes can access it and treat them differently.

-Tim

On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> A compromise is to only allow for the prov:type attribute, and no id.
> This allows for easy mapping to rdf.
> 
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:53, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 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 14:18:16 GMT

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