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

Re: prov:value versus KeyValuePair

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:07:28 -0600
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <227E5510-3B9E-465C-AC41-1A2FBACC11F6@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On May 15, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> On 05/15/2012 01:55 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> prov-wg,
>> 
>> When modeling Dictionaries, PROV-O had a straightforward way to model KeyValuePairs:
>> 
>> [
>>    a prov:KeyValuePair;
>>    prov:key     "goalie";
>>    prov:value  :joe_the_tank;
>> ]
>>   
> 
> FYI, prov-dm talks about key-entity-set (key-entity pairs), since the term value means
> something else in prov-dm.
> I appreciated that prov:entity is already used in prov-o.
> 
>> 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"])
>> used(ex:len,ex:in)
>> wasGeneratedBy(ex:out,ex:len)
>> wasDerivedFrom(ex:out,ex:in)
>> 
>> DM's "value" property is exactly how rdf:value has been used in the past decade:
>> 
>> :parameter_1
>>      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:
>> 
>> 
>> :parameter_1
>>      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".

-1

This also does not provide the functionality the DM wants with prov:value (associating a literal value with the entity) and conflates prov:value to have two very different purposes.

>> 
>> 
>> 2) Rename DM's "value" to "chars", inspired by cnt:chars from
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/#ContentAsTextClass

-1

I prefer "content" to "chars", but would prefer even more to use prov:value to be consistent with the DM.

>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> The names don't need to be exactly the same in prov-o/prov-dm.
> Why can't you prov:pairValue or prov:pairEntity, instead of prov:value in pairs?

+1 for prov:pairEntity

--Stephan

> 
> Luc
>> Which of these options would the group prefer?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>> 
>> ISSUE-363
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 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 Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:08:03 GMT