- From: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:27:59 -0400
- To: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Stephan. The real reason for having prov:type at all is to encourage consistency. Qnames encourage capturing semantic meaning beyond free text. The types we've defined http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-attribute-type set a precedent for the type of types we think should fill prov:type, and the discussion of prov:type in the extensibility points section: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#extensibility-section shows examples defining new prov:types as qnames in other namespaces. This would require some rework of examples, but I think the change would be valuable in the long term. Curt On 09/12/2012 02:19 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > 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 <mailto: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? >> >> >> >> > -- Curt Tilmes, Ph.D. U.S. Global Change Research Program 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20006, USA +1 202-419-3479 (office) +1 443-987-6228 (cell) globalchange.gov
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 12:28:29 UTC