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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-383 (how-to-handle-subtypes): How to handle subtypes in PROV-DM [prov-dm]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:20:37 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <065A95B1-1DCD-4D5C-A8F0-C8030967AC84@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

I thinking adding:

prov:SoftwareAgent         no           no        no
prov:Organization          no           no        no
prov:Person                no           no        no

in non-bold would make sense, if one is inclined to add them.


That leaves
EmptyDictionary, which also seems reasonable (unbolded like the rest).

Regards,
Tim



On May 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim:
> Here it is:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-types-and-relations
> Luc
> 
> On 05/23/2012 04:57 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> Luc,
>> 
>> On May 23, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> 
>>> For revision, hadOriginalSource, and wasQuotedFrom (
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120503/#term-Revision)
>>> 
>>> I feel that we shouldn't introduce a special syntax in PROV-N, but we should
>>> just introduce types: prov:Revision, etc.
>>> 
>>> This would be inline with the way all other subtypes are handled.
>>> 
>>> So, the question is: should they all appear in UML diagram and table 4?
>>>     
>> Which table 4? (URL, please?)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>> 
>>   
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> On 05/23/2012 01:49 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>     
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-383 (how-to-handle-subtypes): How to handle subtypes in PROV-DM [prov-dm]
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/383
>>>> 
>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PROV-DM defines a variety of subtypes and handles them differently.
>>>> 
>>>> Some have an explicit prov-n construct (I think for those, it's a legacy
>>>> of the past, when signatures were not uniform).
>>>> 
>>>> Some are explicitly represented in UML diagrams, some are not.
>>>> Some are listed in table 4.
>>>> 
>>>>                           PROV-N      in UML  in Table 4
>>>>                          notation       diag
>>>> 
>>>> wasRevisionOf              yes          yes      yes
>>>> 
>>>> hadOriginalSource          yes          yes      yes
>>>> 
>>>> wasQuotedFrom              yes          yes      yes
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Plan                  no           yes       no
>>>> 
>>>> prov:SoftwareAgent         no           no        no
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Organization          no           no        no
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Person                no           no        no
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Bundle                no           yes       yes
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Collection            no           yes       yes
>>>> 
>>>> prov:Dictionary            no           yes       yes
>>>> 
>>>> prov:EmptyDictionary       no           no        no
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestions on how to handle them systematically are welcome!
>>>> 
>>>> Luc
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 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, 23 May 2012 16:21:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 May 2012 16:21:09 GMT