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

PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:54:51 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TB0hf-0006Pf-5C@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/536

Raised by: Paolo Missier
On product: prov-n

Is the use of "-" to indicate a missing term a standard convention? It seems unintuitive and potentially error-prone. NULL might be better if positional attributes are used (this issue is moot if named attributes are used; see issue 533 regarding "notation of attributes":
https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533


There seems to be ambiguity in the syntax when the first parameter is option. For example, if both "wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a)" and "wasDerivedFrom(d, e2, e1)" are valid expressions, how can they be differentiated?

Example 1: (e2, e1, a) is an acceptable form of (e2, e1, a, -, -) Example 2: (d, e2, e1) is an acceptable form of (d, e2, e1, -, -, -)

Without named attributes, it is not possible to unambiguously determine how to parse "wasDerivedFrom(1, 2, 3)". Is it in the form of Example 1 or Example 2?
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 09:54:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 09:54:55 GMT