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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:36:30 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <F340FCA3-CB93-4D61-85A5-2D4730AB6B61@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Thanks, Luc.

I closed it and will raise a new issue if I find it during the next review.

Regards,
Tim


On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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 17:37:21 GMT

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