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

PROV-ISSUE-493: prov:type has type Value; valid values too general, include number, datetime, boolean, etc. [prov-dm]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:18:05 +0000
Message-Id: <E1T8wlJ-0005lQ-TG@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-493: prov:type has type Value; valid values too general, include number, datetime, boolean, etc. [prov-dm]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/493

Raised by: Stephan Zednik
On product: prov-dm

The value of prov:type is a Value (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-value) which has the following definition:

A value ◊ is a constant such as a string, number, time, qualified name, IRI, and encoded binary data, whose interpretation is outside the scope of PROV. Values can occur in attribute-value pairs.

Each kind of such values is called a datatype. Use of the following data types is recommended.

The RDF-compatible [RDF-CONCEPTS] types, including those taken from the set of XML Schema Datatypes [XMLSCHEMA11-2];
Qualified names introduced in this specification.
The normative definitions of these datatypes are provided by their respective specifications.

This means that numbers, datetimes, booleans, and unstructured strings are valid values of prov:type.  The prov value section on RDF compliance also seems to suggest there should be a prov:type datatype property in prov-o, which to my knowledge does not currently exist.

So my question is, are we ok with numbers, datetimes, booleans as valid values of prov:type?  All of the examples in the DM document appear to use qnames for values of prov:type.

Second, is there support for a proposal to restrict values of prov:type to qnames?
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 17:18:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 17:18:07 GMT