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

Re: Quality check of ProvRDF

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:44:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnFgoOYHSuaTEHUXWEHBcm9H9DCqhwT4SyXrPoQLRdiXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 15:57, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> FWIW, changes to the PROV-N signatures in the ProvRDF page such as:
>
> |asnExpression([id],e,[a],[t],[attrs])
> +
> |asnExpression(id,e,a,t,[attr_1=val_1, ...])
>
> and
>
> |entity(id, [ attr1=val1, ...])
> +
> entity(id, [ attr_1=val1, ...])
>
>
> break the automated alignment check at

Uh, I did not think about that, sorry.

I thought it was better they were consistent.. I got confused by
:attrn  (attribution??) on the right hand side, and thought an
underscore would work better.  I then thought I better also make every
case of the attribute expansion be consistent as well.

I know the [attr_1=val_1, ..., attr_n=val_n] syntax also makes each
PROV-N side verbose - so I would also be OK with a general explanation
at the top of the page explaining that [attrs] expands to
[attr_1=val_1] .. etc.  However I think it is confusing if we have
attr1 -> :attr_1  - because that seem to imply that you can't reuse
the property names used in PROV-N without doing a mapping.

So should I propose for DM to fix this to my proposed style then..? It
would not be until DM5, but it's a minor detail.


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 09:45:14 GMT

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