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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-243 (TLebo): how to interpret ASN assertions with incomplete arity?

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:50:07 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|38aa171e60ec567ed6056cedbeb11572o2RGo908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F73332F.7020105@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

We have revisited the prov-n grammar, and addressed this concern.

See examples for generation
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#expression-Generation

The intuitive rule is:
   - use '-' for an absent argument.
   - drop it, if there is no ambiguity.

I am closing this issue, pending review.

Luc


On 02/06/2012 09:52 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-243 (TLebo): how to interpret ASN assertions with incomplete arity?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/243
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product:
>
> wasGeneratedBy is defined as arity 5.
>
> The DM asserts in a rule (I've changed the variables):
>
> wasGeneratedBy(a,b,c)
>
> is c a(n) 1) Activity 2) Time 3) attribute-values?
>
> The answer is intended to be 3), but it is clearly ambiguous without context.
>
> I propose to include parameter omissions explicitly in ASN statements:
>
> wasGeneratedBy(a,b,[],[],c)
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:50:57 GMT

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