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

A quick reminder about this issue.

Looking at the PROV-DM document again I see a few examples where simple non-qname strings are used for prov:type values.

From example 21 (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-communication)
prov:type="fine paying, check writing, and mailing"
I think in most if not all of these cases the prov:type value could be simplified to a qname.

I understand this change is significant due to the timing of the suggestion, but I believe the benefit of making this change is worthwhile.

Thanks,
--Stephan
 

On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> 
> 
>