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

prov:value versus KeyValuePair

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:55:54 -0400
Message-Id: <BD1B1ABE-DEAB-47B9-BDD6-F5DC59BDBE82@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

When modeling Dictionaries, PROV-O had a straightforward way to model KeyValuePairs:

   a prov:KeyValuePair;
   prov:key     "goalie"; 
   prov:value  :joe_the_tank;

Then, DM introduced the reserved property "value" to do things like:

entity(ex:in, [prov:value="abcd"]) 
entity(ex:out, [prov:value=4]) 
activity(ex:len, [prov:type="string-length"])

DM's "value" property is exactly how rdf:value has been used in the past decade:

     a prov:Entity;
     rdf:value 1024;

but we wanted to reestablish prov:value because rdf:value's definition was "a bit" cloudy.
So, we end up with:

     a prov:Entity;
     prov:value 1024;

Unfortunately, the KeyValuePair's value collides with the DM's new value (rdf:value).

So, we could:

1) relax prov:value's domain from KeyValuePair to Entity

This would allow us to use prov:value in both KeyValuePairs as well as arbitrary "number entities".

2) Rename DM's "value" to "chars", inspired by cnt:chars from 

Which of these options would the group prefer?


Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 12:56:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:15 UTC