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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-589: scope of prefixes in prov-n documents [prov-n]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:45:38 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|4c52d2eb5c90f176cf43ae57a1f87751oA1Gjk08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5093F8B2.8000202@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,

I have committed some changes related to the scoping of prefix-namespace 
declarations.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/9a123c41e1b5

Feedback is welcome!
Regards,
Luc

On 01/11/2012 17:02, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to clarify: There is some mention in the discussion of issue-496 that the "excluding" scoping rule (where bundles must be self-contained) helps simplify prov-constraints.  I think they are orthogonal issues, since prov-constraints implicitly assumes that co-reference has been resolved before we start checking validity and so on.
>
> I think it is useful to illustrate the effect of the resolution today on a simple example:
>
> document
>    prefix ex http://www.example.com
>    bundle ex:b1
>      entity(ex:e1)
>    endBundle
>    bundle ex:b2
>      prefix ex http://www.example2.com
>      entity(ex:e1)
>    endBundle
> endDocument
>
> With the excluding semantics, every bundle has to be self-contained, and so the example above is *illegal* in prov-n with "excluding" scoping, because b1 doesn't (re)declare namespace ex.
>
> After today's resolution, the above document is *legal*, provided we are clear that redeclarations at inner scopes are allowed and take precedence over any prior declarations.
>
> However, either way it is irrelevant to prov-constraints, which doesn't say anything about namespaces; implementations need to expand out prefixes in the usual way first.  The above document (if legal) is really shorthand for
>
> document
>    bundle http://www.example.com/#b1
>      entity(http://www.example.com/#e1)
>    endBundle
>    bundle http://www.example.com/#b2
>      entity(http://www.example2.com/e1)
>    endBundle
> endDocument
>
> thus, avoiding the potential name clash between the two ex:e1's.
>
> Perhaps this should be clarified in prov-n, prov-constraints, or both.
>
> --James
>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>    
>> PROV-ISSUE-589: scope of prefixes in prov-n documents [prov-n]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/589
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-n
>>
>>
>>
>> Change the scope of document prefixes in prov-n to include inner bundles (unless they are re-declared).
>>
>> This is a follow-up of ISSUE-496
>>
>> See http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01#resolution_5
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    

-- 
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 Friday, 2 November 2012 16:46:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 November 2012 16:46:17 GMT