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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-230 (Name-scoping): Name scoping in DM is wrong concept [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:32:23 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|99a6e3a704458f472cb3d67f5ee8167co2PAXl08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F7037A7.3030306@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Graham, it's now closed.

On 25/03/2012 10:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 23/03/2012 15:12, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>
>> Nesting of accounts is no longer part of prov-dm, so name scoping has 
>> gone.
>> Given this, I propose to close this issue, unless you suggest otherwise.
>
> Thanks. I agree this should now be closed.
>
>> FYI, identifiers, like attributes are defined to be qualified names 
>> in prov-dm [1],
>> with a requirement they map to an IRI. The syntactic details of 
>> qualified
>> names are left to the prov-n document.
>
> That seems the right approach to me.
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-identifier 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/30/2012 11:01 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-230 (Name-scoping): Name scoping in DM is wrong concept 
>>> [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/230
>>>
>>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> The PROV-DM draft introduces name scoping, particularly with respect 
>>> to Accounts.
>>>
>>> I think this is the wrong concept, as it tries to use name-scoping 
>>> to capture
>>> different provenance accounts about the same entity. I think that an 
>>> entity id
>>> should refer to the same Entity wherever it occurs. What may vary 
>>> between
>>> accounts is the claims that are made about that entity. Without 
>>> this, I see no
>>> basis for comparing accounts.
>>>
>>> For PROV-DM, I imagine one one might say that the account+local id 
>>> together
>>> form the common identifier (ala compound key), but then I think some
>>> additional mechanism would then be needed to link names from 
>>> different accounts.
>>>
>>> When the names used are URIs, then I think that the notion of 
>>> scoping is
>>> entirely wrong. URIs are, by design, a *global* namespace, and it 
>>> creates
>>> confusion (or worse) of one allows a URI to denote different things.
>>> Personally, I would not prescribe the form of names used by the DM; 
>>> the use of
>>> URIs is a syntactic matter, and as such it could be introduced for ASN.
>>>
>>> I see the DM as an "abstract syntax" in the sense proposed by John 
>>> McCarthy,
>>> where the terms and productions have the form of logical predicates, 
>>> and in
>>> particular a "name" is distinguished simply as a predicate 
>>> "Name(id)" which is
>>> True iff "id" is a name. This avoids any need to prescribe the 
>>> actual form of
>>> referenced by the DM.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 09:34:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT