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

Re: ProvRDF <-> PROV-O coverage

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:21:00 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <91DE4522-266C-43DC-B5FE-7AAF6C9D87A4@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

Thanks for considering.

I was making the suggestion based on the small group of readers trying to understand the DM; it helped make it more consumable.

-Tim

On Mar 5, 2012, at 3:27 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim
> 
> I suppose you mean the notation wasGeneratedBy([id],e,[a],[t],[attrs])
> instead of wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs).
> 
> We discussed this with Paolo and we don't feel it's suitable since whenever
> we write wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs), we mean an instance of the data model.
> 
> If we want to identify the optional nature of an attribute, we need to look at the
> grammar, not at an instance.
> 
> Luc
> 
> PS. The square brackets around attributes do not mark they are optional, they are
> part of the syntax.
> 
> On 03/02/2012 01:56 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> I would like to propose that the DM editors consider adopting the notation used in ProvRDF, since the PROV-O team found it easier to work with and we believe that others will find it easier as well.
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 5 March 2012 13:21:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT