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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-537: Notation Section 2.4 [prov-n]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:53:16 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e25d1e6cf487a29a6567f774b1e6a8f6o9ELsZ08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|507C77BC.2020901@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

Find below a proposed response for issue 537. Feedback welcome!

Luc

>
>       ISSUE-537 (Syntax of identifiers)
>
>   * Original
>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0131.html
>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/535
>   * Group Response:
>       o There seems to be a misunderstanding of the notation (or the
>         author refers to a previous version of the document).
>       o According to the derivation production, there is one
>         interpretation for wasDerivedFrom(d,e)
>           + d: is an identifier denoting the generated entity
>           + e: is an identifier denoting the used entity
>       o If one wishes to identify the derivation, then the
>         optionalIdentifier production should be used, requiring the
>         optional identifier to be separated with a ; (a distinct
>         separator as suggested in the comment)
>           + wasDerivedFrom(d0;d,e)
>           + d0: is an identifier of the derivation
>   * References:
>       o Derivation
>         production:http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#prod-derivationExpression
>       o Optional identifier
>         production:http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#prod-optionalIdentifier
>   * Changes to the document: none
>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>
>
>     [edit
>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=47>]
>



On 10/09/12 10:55, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-537: Notation Section 2.4 [prov-n]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/537
>
> Raised by: Paolo Missier
> On product: prov-n
>
> The syntax for providing statement identifiers is confusing. When instantiated, wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1) is visually idential to wasDerivedFrom(d, e2), the latter being an invalid expression. If the first parameter of an expression is optional, it would be more clear to use a distinct delimiter between the identifier and the subsequent attributes (just as square brackets are used to deliniate optional attributes). That said, named attributes would be optimal.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 15 October 2012 20:55:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC