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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-354 (all-or-nothing-for-optional-arguments): Adopt an all-or-nothing approach to optional positional arguments [prov-n]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:19:08 +0100
Message-Id: <73DF49D6-8296-491A-B553-DA1348B54BE2@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
This issue has been addressed by editorial changes to PROV-N, adopted as suggested below.  This decreases ambiguity so I'm closing the issue.

--James

On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-354 (all-or-nothing-for-optional-arguments): Adopt an all-or-nothing approach to optional positional arguments [prov-n]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/354
> 
> Raised by: James Cheney
> On product: prov-n
> 
> 
> 
>> However, the grammar may not be systematic enough (a comment that Paolo made).
>> Also, for instance, it forces us to have t or - for time in generation.
> 
> 
> Treating the "positional" optional arguments in the all-or-nothing way (which wasDerivedFrom and others already do) would fix this, while allowing short forms of wasGeneratedBy and friends.  Right now, they are treated in an "all-or-all" way that seems incompatible with many examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 13:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 13:19:54 GMT