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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-229 (Refactor-and-sub-edit): Document would benefit from refactoring and editing [prov-dm]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:32:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4F27FB76.6000200@ninebynine.org>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org


On 31/01/2012 11:32, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 09:15, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>
>>>    Entity(id)
>>>    Activity(id, start?, end?)
>>>    Agent(id)
>>>    Plan(id)
>>>    Event(Id, time?)
>>>    Account(id)
>>>    Attributes(id, [attr1=val1, attr2=val2, ...])
>> I don't understand what you save with this syntactic rewriting. Can you
>> clarify?
>
> I believe Graham means that this simplifies most of the subsections
> that now each have to spend an additional paragraph about attributes.

Yes.

>> This seems to imply that Attributes, can be explain by themselves, that they
>> are standalone.  Not sure this still corresponds to this idea of
>> characterized thing we had for entity.
>
> We already allow multiple 'attributes' statements in separate entity records:
>
> entity(e0)
> entity(e0, [ex:thing="fred", ex:soup="tomato"])
> entity(e0, [ex:blah="1337"])
>
> which is interpreted the same as a single merged record:
>
> entity(e0, [ex:thing="fred", ex:soup="tomato", ex:blah="1337"]

That's interesting.  My reading was that only one Entity with a given id was 
allowed (per account).  This was a secondary (and relatively unimportant) reason 
for my suggestion, as it would allow multiple Attribute records for a single event.

#g
--

> .. and this fits well with the open world assumption in RDF.
>
>
> I don't see any difference here if we allow attributes independently
> of the entity/activity/* record:
>
> attributes(e0, [ex:blah="1337"])
>
> .. we just don't know what e0 is here. If we follow Graham's logic,
> then e0 is always an entity, but might also be an activity, agent or
> plan.
>
>
> However from that logic you could just keep the current entity()
> record and remove attributes from the other records - no need for the
> new attributes() record. Using attributes() instead of entity() would
> de-emphasize the 'is an entity' statement for types like activity and
> agent.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 15:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC